Science undecided of CICO?
Replies
-
If you want to dig deeper into the issues surrounding obesity, start here: http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html
I agree that obesity is multifactorial - and in a cursory review of the map your linked to I think there's a lot that's right. But one question I have is right smack in the middle of the energy balance section is a box labled "Tendency to Preserve Energy". There is no explanation of what that means in the model, but what i think of when i read that is that insulin is acting to store and retain energy as fat. if I want to reduce the tendency to preserve energy to the smallest amount possible, then i need to reduce insulin to the lowest level possible (which in turn means lowering carbs).
If that's not how you understand "the tendency to preserve energy" please explain to me what that means. In your view of the CICO model, what is the mechanism for that tendency and is it something I can alter?
James Krieger explains insulin's role and functions much better than anybody here could: https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/5 -
For now, forget I even mentioned insulin. Can any of the CICO proponents explain to me what the CICO model says about “a tendency to preserve energy”. How is this tendency enforced by the laws of physics or the human body? Can this tendency be affected positively or negatively?
I don’t disagree with the tendency (and I proposed an approach using macro modification to drive hormones to drive the tendency in different directions). I just don’t know how the CICO model squares with this element of the model you sent.0 -
Simply put: when a deficit persists too steeply or too long the body down regulates certain functions to preserve vital functions. But energy cannot be stored unless a surplus exists16
-
stanmann571 wrote: »Simply put: when a deficit persists too steeply or too long the body down regulates certain functions to preserve vital functions. But energy cannot be stored unless a surplus exists
Thanks for the reply. I understand and agree with a "tendency to preserve energy. I wouldn't entirely disagree with your response. I just don't think what you said is contained within or explained by the CICO model. Thats why i was so confused by the model of obesity that AnvilHead sent to justify/explain the CICO model in rebuttal to my assertion that i don;t think its a correct model.
My understanding of the CICO model is that on the "Calories in" side of the equation - a calorie, is a calorie, is a calorie (at least as far as weight gain/loss is concerned. I understand that there are some differences in macornutrients and the thermic effect on the calories out side.
On the "calories out" side of the equation you hace the BMR (basal metabolic rate - which should be set by your mass, body composition, age) + thermic effect of foot + activity calories (exercise and other activity).
I agree that the body has a tendency to preserve energy and that it does regulate the metabolism (down regulation for long term calorie restriction, short term up regulation for high intensity interval training) - I just don't see how you explain that using the CICO model.
When I raised a model of energy regulation that also involves hormones (particularly insulin, but also leptin, and gherlin, and cortisol) a bunch of people jumped on me and said that I was wrong and mocked alternate explanations of how the body handles energy balance, I think understanding whats actually happening is important because it might lead you to make alternate choices in diet, exercise, and lifestyle.
The perfect example of this exact issue is the "biggest loser" study which showed that years later the contestant's metabolisms slowed by more that could be explained by their drop in weight and that something else was happening that the researchers couldn't explain.
So how does the CICO model explain the tendency to preserve energy/down regualtion of metabolism?2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Simply put: when a deficit persists too steeply or too long the body down regulates certain functions to preserve vital functions. But energy cannot be stored unless a surplus exists
Thanks for the reply. I understand and agree with a "tendency to preserve energy. I wouldn't entirely disagree with your response. I just don't think what you said is contained within or explained by the CICO model. Thats why i was so confused by the model of obesity that AnvilHead sent to justify/explain the CICO model in rebuttal to my assertion that i don;t think its a correct model.
My understanding of the CICO model is that on the "Calories in" side of the equation - a calorie, is a calorie, is a calorie (at least as far as weight gain/loss is concerned. I understand that there are some differences in macornutrients and the thermic effect on the calories out side.
On the "calories out" side of the equation you hace the BMR (basal metabolic rate - which should be set by your mass, body composition, age) + thermic effect of foot + activity calories (exercise and other activity).
I agree that the body has a tendency to preserve energy and that it does regulate the metabolism (down regulation for long term calorie restriction, short term up regulation for high intensity interval training) - I just don't see how you explain that using the CICO model.
When I raised a model of energy regulation that also involves hormones (particularly insulin, but also leptin, and gherlin, and cortisol) a bunch of people jumped on me and said that I was wrong and mocked alternate explanations of how the body handles energy balance, I think understanding whats actually happening is important because it might lead you to make alternate choices in diet, exercise, and lifestyle.
The perfect example of this exact issue is the "biggest loser" study which showed that years later the contestant's metabolisms slowed by more that could be explained by their drop in weight and that something else was happening that the researchers couldn't explain.
So how does the CICO model explain the tendency to preserve energy/down regualtion of metabolism?
If put under significant stress (ie a steep deficit of calories) for a significant time period and in the absence of any other source of calories (like body fat) the system will start burning other, more vital sources of energy like organs. But it doesn’t like doing that as it conflicts with other sub-systems put in place to preserve those organs.
So to compromise the system cuts back on expenditure of energy to reduce the level of cannibalisation of organs. “Cutting back” can mean reducing the number of calories required for essential functions (“adaptive thermogenesis” which leads to a drop in metabolic rate), shutting down non-essential functions (Hair and nail growth) etc.
But all these compromises are temporary and minor when compared with the sheer quantity of calories needed just to survive, let alone operate at a level that we would consider as “normal”.
So eventually the body has to cannibalise something drastic and organs start to fail, systems collapse etc.8 -
I get all the things your said. My assertion is that the CICO model is a simple linear equation that it is not accurate and does not adequately describe the complexity of the human body (which you also described nicely).
My point is that the CICO model has a very limited number of variables in it (calories consumed, BMR, thermic effect of food, activity calories) and as far as I can tell - not one of the variables explain or account for changes to metabolic rate that are not tied to changes in body mass/body composition.
If the CICO model can't explain something that people generally acknowledge happens - then why isn't the CICO model either incorrect or, at best, incomplete?19 -
I get all the things your said. My assertion is that the CICO model is a simple linear equation that it is not accurate and does not adequately describe the complexity of the human body (which you also described nicely).
My point is that the CICO model has a very limited number of variables in it (calories consumed, BMR, thermic effect of food, activity calories) and as far as I can tell - not one of the variables explain or account for changes to metabolic rate that are not tied to changes in body mass/body composition.
If the CICO model can't explain something that people generally acknowledge happens - then why isn't the CICO model either incorrect or, at best, incomplete?
Sorry, can you explain a bit more about what you mean? What sort of things are you thinking of which would change metabolic rate but not be tied to changes in body mass or body composition?1 -
I get all the things your said. My assertion is that the CICO model is a simple linear equation that it is not accurate and does not adequately describe the complexity of the human body (which you also described nicely).
My point is that the CICO model has a very limited number of variables in it (calories consumed, BMR, thermic effect of food, activity calories) and as far as I can tell - not one of the variables explain or account for changes to metabolic rate that are not tied to changes in body mass/body composition.
If the CICO model can't explain something that people generally acknowledge happens - then why isn't the CICO model either incorrect or, at best, incomplete?
Why wouldn't metabolic rate be addressed in CO? If your metabolic rate goes down, your calories out go down.8 -
Just going based on the evidence I can observe; Consuming fewer calories has resulted in me losing 61 pounds even with just a small amount of exercise. That tells me it works, and isn't science the observation, cause and effect? (and I think I love the trolls trolling the trolls!)5
-
Just going based on the evidence I can observe; Consuming fewer calories has resulted in me losing 61 pounds even with just a small amount of exercise. That tells me it works, and isn't science the observation, cause and effect? (and I think I love the trolls trolling the trolls!)
There’s also usually a bit of testing for replication of result in there but I guess we people of MFP are kinda the guinea pigs for that - squeak!
Triple trolling...3 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Just going based on the evidence I can observe; Consuming fewer calories has resulted in me losing 61 pounds even with just a small amount of exercise. That tells me it works, and isn't science the observation, cause and effect? (and I think I love the trolls trolling the trolls!)
There’s also usually a bit of testing for replication of result in there but I guess we people of MFP are kinda the guinea pigs for that - squeak!
Triple trolling...
Not only that, we all unknowingly volunteered for a blind study!4 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Just going based on the evidence I can observe; Consuming fewer calories has resulted in me losing 61 pounds even with just a small amount of exercise. That tells me it works, and isn't science the observation, cause and effect? (and I think I love the trolls trolling the trolls!)
There’s also usually a bit of testing for replication of result in there but I guess we people of MFP are kinda the guinea pigs for that - squeak!
Triple trolling...
Not only that, we all unknowingly volunteered for a blind study!
And if you disagree with them using your data, your account can be deleted.4 -
I get all the things your said. My assertion is that the CICO model is a simple linear equation that it is not accurate and does not adequately describe the complexity of the human body (which you also described nicely).
My point is that the CICO model has a very limited number of variables in it (calories consumed, BMR, thermic effect of food, activity calories) and as far as I can tell - not one of the variables explain or account for changes to metabolic rate that are not tied to changes in body mass/body composition.
If the CICO model can't explain something that people generally acknowledge happens - then why isn't the CICO model either incorrect or, at best, incomplete?
Why wouldn't metabolic rate be addressed in CO? If your metabolic rate goes down, your calories out go down.
Exactly.
The problem doesn't lie with CICO. It lies with people's understanding of CICO. It's akin to saying science is undecided about gravity because airplanes and birds.15 -
I actually watched the whole video and found it pretty interesting even though some of it was over my head.
In the video he says the body can do 3 things with energy: store it, use it or waste it where wasting is through urine or exhaling.
My thought is that the “wasting” is actually part of “using”. The body might be using energy to convert the fat to waste and sending it out the body burning calories in the process. Therefore, there’s still only 2 things the body can do with energy: store or use.
But I’m just guessing.
2 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Sorry, can you explain a bit more about what you mean? What sort of things are you thinking of which would change metabolic rate but not be tied to changes in body mass or body composition?
According to the CICO model - your daily metabolic rate should be your BMR + activity. My point is that BMR seems to do a poor job of predicting someones base metabolism overtime when they are on a diet. the biggest loser study here's accessible summary of the study (an https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/) found that the study participants were lower than should have been predicted by the BMR formula. If the BMR formula is an inaccurate variable in teh CICO model, then the whole model has a flaw,
On the flip side, there are numerous studies showing that if your burn 400 calories during 30 minutes of high intensity interval training your metabolism will go up and stay up for 24-48 hours and that you will get extra calorie burning benefits beyond just the 400 burned during your session. This is not the case if you burn 400 calories in a steady state exercise. There seems to be some mechanism in HIIT exercise that is not explained by the CICO model (BMR + activity)19 -
I get all the things your said. My assertion is that the CICO model is a simple linear equation that it is not accurate and does not adequately describe the complexity of the human body (which you also described nicely).
My point is that the CICO model has a very limited number of variables in it (calories consumed, BMR, thermic effect of food, activity calories) and as far as I can tell - not one of the variables explain or account for changes to metabolic rate that are not tied to changes in body mass/body composition.
If the CICO model can't explain something that people generally acknowledge happens - then why isn't the CICO model either incorrect or, at best, incomplete?
BMR isn't as static as some people tend to think, though. For instance, take someone like me who menstruates. My BMR changes due to hormones depending on where I am in my monthly cycle -lowest at ovulation and then climbing during the luteal phase. Hormones affect my BMR which in turn affects my calories out without any changes to my body composition. Most of the changes you're describing are covered in the CICO equation, it's just that you've boiled the equation down too far to see it.5 -
According to the CICO model - your daily metabolic rate should be your BMR + activity. My point is that BMR seems to do a poor job of predicting someones base metabolism overtime when they are on a diet. the biggest loser study here's accessible summary of the study (an https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/) found that the study participants were lower than should have been predicted by the BMR formula. If the BMR formula is an inaccurate variable in teh CICO model, then the whole model has a flaw...
It sounds like you're just eager to throw the baby out with the bath water. CICO says nothing about the accuracy of formulas/algorithms we've derived to predict things such as BMR. CICO is an energy balance equation - it simply has to do with what happens to your weight when you're in an energy deficit, surplus or equilibrium. As many people do, you're confusing energy balance with calorie counting. They're two separate things.On the flip side, there are numerous studies showing that if your burn 400 calories during 30 minutes of high intensity interval training your metabolism will go up and stay up for 24-48 hours and that you will get extra calorie burning benefits beyond just the 400 burned during your session. This is not the case if you burn 400 calories in a steady state exercise. There seems to be some mechanism in HIIT exercise that is not explained by the CICO model (BMR + activity)
There are also numerous studies showing that the purported EPOC benefits from HIIT are highly overstated, to the point of being BS. Start here (studies linked/referenced): https://breakingmuscle.com/fitness/the-myth-of-interval-training-and-epoc
9 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Sorry, can you explain a bit more about what you mean? What sort of things are you thinking of which would change metabolic rate but not be tied to changes in body mass or body composition?
According to the CICO model - your daily metabolic rate should be your BMR + activity. My point is that BMR seems to do a poor job of predicting someones base metabolism overtime when they are on a diet. the biggest loser study here's accessible summary of the study (an https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/) found that the study participants were lower than should have been predicted by the BMR formula. If the BMR formula is an inaccurate variable in teh CICO model, then the whole model has a flaw,
On the flip side, there are numerous studies showing that if your burn 400 calories during 30 minutes of high intensity interval training your metabolism will go up and stay up for 24-48 hours and that you will get extra calorie burning benefits beyond just the 400 burned during your session. This is not the case if you burn 400 calories in a steady state exercise. There seems to be some mechanism in HIIT exercise that is not explained by the CICO model (BMR + activity)
CICO doesn't mean that you grab a random number from a calculator and follow it dogmatically, though. You're using poor application of a rule to invalidate the rule itself.11 -
Why wouldn't metabolic rate be addressed in CO? If your metabolic rate goes down, your calories out go down.
In my understanding of the CICO model, ALL calories out are ONLY accounted for by BMR + thermic effect of food + activity. BMR is ONLY based on body mass, body composition, gender, age and general activity level.
Thats the point of the biggest loser study - they found metabolism slowed more than one would expect based on the BMR formula and when people regained weight, their BMR didn't go up in the way predicted by the BMR formula.
To be clear, I thing metabolisms do slow down and speed up based on external signals. I think hormones play a big role in that (e.g., insulin from carbs, cortisol from lack of sleep/stress, and something hormonal caused by HIIT) and its why i think the CICO model is flawed.
The model that AnvilHead posted in his response to me had a variable (tendency to preserve energy) that, based on my understanding of the CICO model, should not be there if you believe the CICO model is correct and accurate. Thats why I keep asking for somebody who believes in the CICO model to explain to me how to reconcile this inconsistency.18 -
The problem doesn't lie with CICO. It lies with people's understanding of CICO. It's akin to saying science is undecided about gravity because airplanes and birds.
Please see my response to Kimny72 - if you can explain how my understanding of the calories out side of the equation is wrong I'd appreciate it.7 -
I actually watched the whole video and found it pretty interesting even though some of it was over my head.
In the video he says the body can do 3 things with energy: store it, use it or waste it where wasting is through urine or exhaling.
My thought is that the “wasting” is actually part of “using”. The body might be using energy to convert the fat to waste and sending it out the body burning calories in the process. Therefore, there’s still only 2 things the body can do with energy: store or use.
But I’m just guessing.
Thanks for taking the time to watch the video Riff1970. While I have problems with the CICO model, i actually like the model that AnvilHead sent as a better and more complete model (http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html).
Based on other literature, like the video, I've concluded that low carb is the way to go (in my case to the point of being ketogenic) because a ketogenic diet creates a new pathway to expend energy (wasting - through exhaled breath and through urine). I've also found that adjusting my macros to favor protein and fat and significantly reduce carbs has improved my "Level of Satiety" and "degree of primary appetite control" (these are two additional variables in the model that AnvilHead sent. For me, this is another reason that you can't say "a calorie, is a calorie, is a calorie." I think macros matter because there is some type of hormonal or other signaling response that is driving your body.17 -
Why wouldn't metabolic rate be addressed in CO? If your metabolic rate goes down, your calories out go down.
In my understanding of the CICO model, ALL calories out are ONLY accounted for by BMR + thermic effect of food + activity. BMR is ONLY based on body mass, body composition, gender, age and general activity level.
Thats the point of the biggest loser study - they found metabolism slowed more than one would expect based on the BMR formula and when people regained weight, their BMR didn't go up in the way predicted by the BMR formula.
To be clear, I thing metabolisms do slow down and speed up based on external signals. I think hormones play a big role in that (e.g., insulin from carbs, cortisol from lack of sleep/stress, and something hormonal caused by HIIT) and its why i think the CICO model is flawed.
The model that AnvilHead posted in his response to me had a variable (tendency to preserve energy) that, based on my understanding of the CICO model, should not be there if you believe the CICO model is correct and accurate. Thats why I keep asking for somebody who believes in the CICO model to explain to me how to reconcile this inconsistency.
BMR is affected by everything from bone density to climate to hormones. T4, a high fever, hot weather, or menstruation can affect it. Where are you getting this idea that nothing but body mass, body composition, gender, age and general activity level affect it (and for the record, I don't believe general activity level is included since that's added on as your NEAT)
10 -
diannethegeek wrote: »CICO doesn't mean that you grab a random number from a calculator and follow it dogmatically, though. You're using poor application of a rule to invalidate the rule itself.
But that's exactly what the CICO model says - track your caloric intake, track/estimate your energy expenditure and as long as calories in are less than calories out you will lose weight. While that works for some period of time, once the body begins to adapt it becomes more complicated.
If you think the model says something other than what i've said, please tell me where I'm wrong.18 -
Why wouldn't metabolic rate be addressed in CO? If your metabolic rate goes down, your calories out go down.
In my understanding of the CICO model, ALL calories out are ONLY accounted for by BMR + thermic effect of food + activity. BMR is ONLY based on body mass, body composition, gender, age and general activity level.
Thats the point of the biggest loser study - they found metabolism slowed more than one would expect based on the BMR formula and when people regained weight, their BMR didn't go up in the way predicted by the BMR formula.
To be clear, I thing metabolisms do slow down and speed up based on external signals. I think hormones play a big role in that (e.g., insulin from carbs, cortisol from lack of sleep/stress, and something hormonal caused by HIIT) and its why i think the CICO model is flawed.
The model that AnvilHead posted in his response to me had a variable (tendency to preserve energy) that, based on my understanding of the CICO model, should not be there if you believe the CICO model is correct and accurate. Thats why I keep asking for somebody who believes in the CICO model to explain to me how to reconcile this inconsistency.
CICO simply says CI=CO for weight management. CI>CO means weight gain. CI<CO means weight loss. There are no specific formulas associated with it other than that. If something, anything, causes your CO to go down, you need to eat less to maintain weight. That's really it.10 -
diannethegeek wrote: »CICO doesn't mean that you grab a random number from a calculator and follow it dogmatically, though. You're using poor application of a rule to invalidate the rule itself.
But that's exactly what the CICO model says - track your caloric intake, track/estimate your energy expenditure and as long as calories in are less than calories out you will lose weight. While that works for some period of time, once the body begins to adapt it becomes more complicated.
If you think the model says something other than what i've said, please tell me where I'm wrong.
If you're in a calorie deficit then you will lose weight. If your TDEE is lowered by a low BMR, EE, or NEAT, then you won't be in a calorie deficit following the basic calculators. This is why people are often encouraged not to trust the calculator dogmatically and to adjust based on their own real world results.
A calorie deficit comes from your actual TDEE, not a number the computer spits out.11 -
diannethegeek wrote: »CICO doesn't mean that you grab a random number from a calculator and follow it dogmatically, though. You're using poor application of a rule to invalidate the rule itself.
But that's exactly what the CICO model says - track your caloric intake, track/estimate your energy expenditure and as long as calories in are less than calories out you will lose weight. While that works for some period of time, once the body begins to adapt it becomes more complicated.
If you think the model says something other than what i've said, please tell me where I'm wrong.
Again, you're conflating CICO with calorie counting. "The CICO model" says nothing of the sort, and there is no such thing as "The CICO model". CICO is simply an acronym for the physical law of energy balance. It doesn't say anything about tracking anything, counting anything or estimating anything.
Go ahead and try keto. You'll soon discover that the laws of energy balance apply no matter how you divide your macros up. And that's all a ketogenic diet is - dividing your macros differently. There are plenty of studies which have shown that, given equal calories, there is no "metabolic advantage" to a ketogenic diet.16 -
Comments section of an online newspaper article? LOL. Can't take it seriously.
6 -
diannethegeek wrote: »GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Sorry, can you explain a bit more about what you mean? What sort of things are you thinking of which would change metabolic rate but not be tied to changes in body mass or body composition?
According to the CICO model - your daily metabolic rate should be your BMR + activity. My point is that BMR seems to do a poor job of predicting someones base metabolism overtime when they are on a diet. the biggest loser study here's accessible summary of the study (an https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/) found that the study participants were lower than should have been predicted by the BMR formula. If the BMR formula is an inaccurate variable in teh CICO model, then the whole model has a flaw,
On the flip side, there are numerous studies showing that if your burn 400 calories during 30 minutes of high intensity interval training your metabolism will go up and stay up for 24-48 hours and that you will get extra calorie burning benefits beyond just the 400 burned during your session. This is not the case if you burn 400 calories in a steady state exercise. There seems to be some mechanism in HIIT exercise that is not explained by the CICO model (BMR + activity)
CICO doesn't mean that you grab a random number from a calculator and follow it dogmatically, though. You're using poor application of a rule to invalidate the rule itself.
Like the rule about thunderstorms. X seconds between lightning and thunder means Y distance of the storm. Uses the different speeds of light and sound to make a guess at the distance. It's a rough estimate, doesn't change the science underneath if you were to use accurate numbers.8 -
You keep referring to the "CICO model" as if it is a theory that was derived out of nothing. CICO is merely a statement of the first law of thermodynamics, as applied to a living system. The laws of thermodynamics are well understood to apply in physics, chemistry (a subset of physics), and biochemistry (a subset of chemistry). The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is neither created nor destroyed, and CICO is a statement of that as it relates to living things.
CICO itself is not a model, it's a restatement of a fundamental law in science. CO is estimated by models, but they do not have to be absolutely precise to be useful. Hormones cannot increase CI, and only influence CO slightly. The beauty of understanding how weight loss comes down simply and fundamentally to energy balance means that you can use these estimates to hone in on your own balance and then eat whatever meets your nutritional needs and personal preferences.13 -
Why wouldn't metabolic rate be addressed in CO? If your metabolic rate goes down, your calories out go down.
In my understanding of the CICO model, ALL calories out are ONLY accounted for by BMR + thermic effect of food + activity. BMR is ONLY based on body mass, body composition, gender, age and general activity level.
Thats the point of the biggest loser study - they found metabolism slowed more than one would expect based on the BMR formula and when people regained weight, their BMR didn't go up in the way predicted by the BMR formula.
To be clear, I thing metabolisms do slow down and speed up based on external signals. I think hormones play a big role in that (e.g., insulin from carbs, cortisol from lack of sleep/stress, and something hormonal caused by HIIT) and its why i think the CICO model is flawed.
The model that AnvilHead posted in his response to me had a variable (tendency to preserve energy) that, based on my understanding of the CICO model, should not be there if you believe the CICO model is correct and accurate. Thats why I keep asking for somebody who believes in the CICO model to explain to me how to reconcile this inconsistency.
The problem lies not in the model, but in your understanding of it.
It has been explained several times, you just keep ignoring it16
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions