Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
40+ Push-Ups in a Row for Men to Reduce Heart Disease Potential? - Study on Firemen
Ed_Zilla
Posts: 207 Member
https://www.studyfinds.org/men-more-than-40-push-ups-heart-disease/
The article follows the firemen for 10 years and 36 of the 37 that could NOT bang our 41 push-ups at the start of the study developed heart disease. So this article is a direct measurement, not a projection. I would also guess a fireman that can bang out 40+ push-ups in a row are probably is in an overall fit condition. They provided the BMI of the group at the beginning of the study, but not at the end...a shortcoming of the article in my opinion.
For those of you that loathe clicking links, I have cut/pasted the text of the article below.
Men Who Can Do More Than 40 Push-Ups Far Less Likely To Develop Heart Disease
by Study Finds
BOSTON — Here’s one way to predict your heart health: get down and give me 41. A new study finds that men who can perform at least 40 push-ups in one attempt are much less likely to suffer from heart disease within the next 10 years.
Researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public health say their report is the first to show how push-up capacity is linked to heart disease. They found that middle-aged men who can log more than 40 push-ups in a single try have a 96% reduced risk of developing the potentially deadly condition and other related ailments, such as heart failure, compared to those who can complete no more than 10 push-ups.
New research shows middle-aged men are 96% less likely to develop heart disease if they can do more than 40 push-ups in one try. For their study, the authors reviewed health data from 1,104 active male firefighters taken annually from 2000 to 2010. At the start of the study, the average participant was about 40 years old with an average body mass index of 28.7. The firefighters were tasked with performing as many push-ups as they could, and their treadmill tolerance was also tested.
By the end of the study period, 37 participants suffered from a heart disease-related condition — and 36 of those men weren’t able to log more than 40 push-ups in the initial test. The results of the treadmill test were not as clearly linked to heart disease diagnoses.
“Our findings provide evidence that push-up capacity could be an easy, no-cost method to help assess cardiovascular disease risk in almost any setting,” says the study’s first author, Justin Yang, an occupational medicine resident at the school, in a news release. Surprisingly, push-up capacity was more strongly associated with cardiovascular disease risk than the results of submaximal treadmill tests.”
The authors note that because the study was completed by middle-aged men with active occupations, the results shouldn’t be considered the same for women or men who are less active or of different ages.
This study was published in JAMA Network Open.
The article follows the firemen for 10 years and 36 of the 37 that could NOT bang our 41 push-ups at the start of the study developed heart disease. So this article is a direct measurement, not a projection. I would also guess a fireman that can bang out 40+ push-ups in a row are probably is in an overall fit condition. They provided the BMI of the group at the beginning of the study, but not at the end...a shortcoming of the article in my opinion.
For those of you that loathe clicking links, I have cut/pasted the text of the article below.
Men Who Can Do More Than 40 Push-Ups Far Less Likely To Develop Heart Disease
by Study Finds
BOSTON — Here’s one way to predict your heart health: get down and give me 41. A new study finds that men who can perform at least 40 push-ups in one attempt are much less likely to suffer from heart disease within the next 10 years.
Researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public health say their report is the first to show how push-up capacity is linked to heart disease. They found that middle-aged men who can log more than 40 push-ups in a single try have a 96% reduced risk of developing the potentially deadly condition and other related ailments, such as heart failure, compared to those who can complete no more than 10 push-ups.
New research shows middle-aged men are 96% less likely to develop heart disease if they can do more than 40 push-ups in one try. For their study, the authors reviewed health data from 1,104 active male firefighters taken annually from 2000 to 2010. At the start of the study, the average participant was about 40 years old with an average body mass index of 28.7. The firefighters were tasked with performing as many push-ups as they could, and their treadmill tolerance was also tested.
By the end of the study period, 37 participants suffered from a heart disease-related condition — and 36 of those men weren’t able to log more than 40 push-ups in the initial test. The results of the treadmill test were not as clearly linked to heart disease diagnoses.
“Our findings provide evidence that push-up capacity could be an easy, no-cost method to help assess cardiovascular disease risk in almost any setting,” says the study’s first author, Justin Yang, an occupational medicine resident at the school, in a news release. Surprisingly, push-up capacity was more strongly associated with cardiovascular disease risk than the results of submaximal treadmill tests.”
The authors note that because the study was completed by middle-aged men with active occupations, the results shouldn’t be considered the same for women or men who are less active or of different ages.
This study was published in JAMA Network Open.
2
Replies
-
And I found the actual study if you like technical articles...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2724778
2 -
I saw that on Twitter. It makes some sense if you think about the likely differences between middle aged men who can and cannot do 40+ pushups.3
-
From the same article:The current study has several limitations. First, the study assessed the association between push-ups and CVD events. The results do not support push-up capacity as an independent predictor of CVD risk. Second, because the study cohort consisted of middle-aged, occupationally active men, the study results may not be generalizable to women, older or nonactive persons, other occupational groups, or unemployed persons.2
-
There are so many studies that seem like this: I've been most inclined to notice those connecting certain fitness markers to longer-term health among aging folks (because I am one) and/or longevity.
I've seen studies that if aging people could do X number of bodyweight squats they live longer, if they had high grip strength they live longer **, if they can get up from sitting on the floor without using hands/supports they live longer . . . etc.
Yup, fit people are healthier and live longer. Startling.
In a way, the pushups one (like, to perhaps a lesser extent, the squats and getting up from the floor ones) are especially goofy: That's something that's (I believe) objectively easier to do at a lighter body weight with respect to frame size.
** On Facebook, where a link to this grip strength study was in my feed <eye roll>, someone literally commented, quite seriously as far as I could tell, that they were going to run out and get one of those grip strength exercise devices for the good of their long term health/longevity. <double reversing eye roll with ornamental exclamation points around cranium>).7 -
Pushups area only one activity.
I can't do 41 pushups. But I'd bet most of those firemen can't swim as far as I do.5 -
Pushups area only one activity.
I can't do 41 pushups. But I'd bet most of those firemen can't swim as far as I do.
A push-up primarily tests your upper body strength and endurance (triceps pectoral and front delt) with some core required to hold what is a basically a plank position. It takes zero skill or specialized training to understand the mechanics and execution - unlike swimming. The most fit person on earth isn’t swimming very far if they can barely manage a dog paddle without drowning.
3 -
In a way, the pushups one (like, to perhaps a lesser extent, the squats and getting up from the floor ones) are especially goofy: That's something that's (I believe) objectively easier to do at a lighter body weight with respect to frame size.
That's exactly what I was thinking -- the underlying factors here are being lighter and having a better muscle to fat ratio. It's not surprising if that correlates to being more healthy overall, especially if one is a middle aged man with an active job, but doesn't mean that doing push ups vs. other exercises is meaningful.
I do think that remaining active and including strength-bearing exercises to maintain muscle mass as we age is going to be overall important.4 -
My problem isn't with the academic article (or what I skimmed of it), it's with the typical lay reading and reporting of it. The authors seem to be well aware of the fact that you can't use push ups alone to predict for cardiovascular events (see my quote above) and recognize that their data set was an incredibly narrow range of the population.1
-
I do like 200 some pushups twice a week just because it's a very easy and convenient way (for me) to supplement my Indoor Rowing. Though I do it throughout the day in sets of 20 to 25, I'm sure I could bang out over 40. This means nothing in terms of my risk of having a heart attack. I'm sure that Bob Harper could have done 60 pushups weeks before his heart attack. I'm not a huge fan of some of Bob Harper's workout tapes because many are too strenuous, but the guy was in incredible shape and still had a "widow maker" heart attack.2
-
Jesus, if Bob Harper had a heart attack I'm never going to see 50.2
-
And I can do loads of push ups0
-
Shallow question. Why push ups and not burpees? I would think something like that would be a better indicator of overall cardiac health? Or am I, as usual lol, missing something?0
-
I don't think the firefighters were doing the push-ups for the study. I think this is a study analysing the data from firefighters' annual physicals, so they're working with what firefighters are currently asked to do in that.Shallow question. Why push ups and not burpees? I would think something like that would be a better indicator of overall cardiac health? Or am I, as usual lol, missing something?
4 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
I don't think the firefighters were doing the push-ups for the study. I think this is a study analysing the data from firefighters' annual physicals, so they're working with what firefighters are currently asked to do in that.Shallow question. Why push ups and not burpees? I would think something like that would be a better indicator of overall cardiac health? Or am I, as usual lol, missing something?
Yep - I did indeed miss something. I am so predictable
Thanks
2 -
Hey, it was a good question. I had to re-read the whole article before I answered. My initial answer was going to be, "presumably because when they initially tried to recruit study participants, all the men walked straight out again when they were asked to do burpees".HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
I don't think the firefighters were doing the push-ups for the study. I think this is a study analysing the data from firefighters' annual physicals, so they're working with what firefighters are currently asked to do in that.Shallow question. Why push ups and not burpees? I would think something like that would be a better indicator of overall cardiac health? Or am I, as usual lol, missing something?
Yep - I did indeed miss something. I am so predictable
Thanks
I think that's what is known as 'projection', though.
5 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Hey, it was a good question. I had to re-read the whole article before I answered. My initial answer was going to be, "presumably because when they initially tried to recruit study participants, all the men walked straight out again when they were asked to do burpees".
I think that's what is known as 'projection', though.
I chuckled at that. I hate burpees.
I guess, coming at these studies from the PoV of someone who is inquisitive and wants to learn, but is in no way, shape, manner or form an "ist" of any kind (scientist, biologist etc) is...challenging, for me anyway. I tend to miss the small details while trying to get the big picture.
That...is why I'm hesitant to ask questions at times such as "Why would they do a study like that? What good does it really do?" The simple answer is "to learn something new" I suppose.
That, and I love this debate forum. Everyone is so civil. Not my experience on some other forums.
edited to fix quotes3 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Hey, it was a good question. I had to re-read the whole article before I answered. My initial answer was going to be, "presumably because when they initially tried to recruit study participants, all the men walked straight out again when they were asked to do burpees".
I think that's what is known as 'projection', though.
I chuckled at that. I hate burpees.
I guess, coming at these studies from the PoV of someone who is inquisitive and wants to learn, but is in no way, shape, manner or form an "ist" of any kind (scientist, biologist etc) is...challenging, for me anyway. I tend to miss the small details while trying to get the big picture.
That...is why I'm hesitant to ask questions at times such as "Why would they do a study like that? What good does it really do?" The simple answer is "to learn something new" I suppose.
That, and I love this debate forum. Everyone is so civil. Not my experience on some other forums.
edited to fix quotes
My suggestion would be to start by skimming the article (as in, the [academic] journal article) if you have access to it. In this case it's an open access one (thank you authors for paying the extra money to make that happen). Read the abstract, skim the methods section (methodology), and skim the discussion/conclusion/. If you're used to reading other genres of academic articles it's not all that dissimilar (I don't read physiology articles on a regular basis but I do read linguistics articles). The topics are totally different of course and my eyes tend to glaze over when I see a lot of numbers, but the structures of most of the articles aren't vastly different.
If you don't have access to the article, just read the abstract and see what you can glean from that.1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Hey, it was a good question. I had to re-read the whole article before I answered. My initial answer was going to be, "presumably because when they initially tried to recruit study participants, all the men walked straight out again when they were asked to do burpees".
I think that's what is known as 'projection', though.
I chuckled at that. I hate burpees.
I guess, coming at these studies from the PoV of someone who is inquisitive and wants to learn, but is in no way, shape, manner or form an "ist" of any kind (scientist, biologist etc) is...challenging, for me anyway. I tend to miss the small details while trying to get the big picture.
That...is why I'm hesitant to ask questions at times such as "Why would they do a study like that? What good does it really do?" The simple answer is "to learn something new" I suppose.
That, and I love this debate forum. Everyone is so civil. Not my experience on some other forums.
edited to fix quotes
My suggestion would be to start by skimming the article (as in, the [academic] journal article) if you have access to it. In this case it's an open access one (thank you authors for paying the extra money to make that happen). Read the abstract, skim the methods section (methodology), and skim the discussion/conclusion/. If you're used to reading other genres of academic articles it's not all that dissimilar (I don't read physiology articles on a regular basis but I do read linguistics articles). The topics are totally different of course and my eyes tend to glaze over when I see a lot of numbers, but the structures of most of the articles aren't vastly different.
If you don't have access to the article, just read the abstract and see what you can glean from that.
Thanks aokoye 0 -
I think the study was actually pretty small to draw any real conclusions from. If you are looking at data and trends, a lot of time you will see studies that start in the hundreds of thousands of participants range. That this study only yielded 37 people with heart disease shows that it's pretty small for what it is trying to study. The issue with the results are then compounded with this truly awful line from the write up. "New research shows middle-aged men are 96% less likely to develop heart disease if they can do more than 40 push-ups in one try." Uh, no. That's not remotely what the study signifies. There are many issues with this analysis, but one main one being is that we don't actually know what percentage of firefighters could do 40 pushups to start? What if it was only 3% of firefighters? Then the results would show that there was no discernible difference. Awful layperson writes up of scientific articles makes me bonkers.
That being said, I think this study adds some minor support to a theory that I think is generally correct "strength training is as/if not more important than cardiovascular training when it comes to reducing the risks of certain heart issues."0 -
I think the study was actually pretty small to draw any real conclusions from. If you are looking at data and trends, a lot of time you will see studies that start in the hundreds of thousands of participants range. That this study only yielded 37 people with heart disease shows that it's pretty small for what it is trying to study. The issue with the results are then compounded with this truly awful line from the write up. "New research shows middle-aged men are 96% less likely to develop heart disease if they can do more than 40 push-ups in one try." Uh, no. That's not remotely what the study signifies. There are many issues with this analysis, but one main one being is that we don't actually know what percentage of firefighters could do 40 pushups to start? What if it was only 3% of firefighters? Then the results would show that there was no discernible difference. Awful layperson writes up of scientific articles makes me bonkers.
That being said, I think this study adds some minor support to a theory that I think is generally correct "strength training is as/if not more important than cardiovascular training when it comes to reducing the risks of certain heart issues."
If i'm not mistaken, that is in the first table (table 1). 115 participants were able to do more than 40 push-ups during the baseline test.1 -
-
From the article you linked,No, your findings provide evidence that observational studies from Harvard are usually meaningless garbage dressed up as science. It’s a wonder anyone keeps funding these turkeys
It's as if people forget that the reason people live as long as they do, various hybridized plants exist, they can even buy protein powder, small pox has been eradicated, and they're able to, say, have any surgery that doesn't result sepsis is because of studies done at institutions like Harvard.
edit: I'm not saying that the study is good, but to use it as an example of why research in general is somehow useless, bad, and/or shouldn't be funded shows an ignorance to the importance of research on our day to day lives (never mind that most people don't know how hard it is to actually get funding... it's not like get gets handed out like candy on halloween)5 -
From the article you linked,No, your findings provide evidence that observational studies from Harvard are usually meaningless garbage dressed up as science. It’s a wonder anyone keeps funding these turkeys
It's as if people forget that the reason people live as long as they do, various hybridized plants exist, they can even buy protein powder, small pox has been eradicated, and they're able to, say, have any surgery that doesn't result sepsis is because of studies done at institutions like Harvard.
edit: I'm not saying that the study is good, but to use it as an example of why research in general is somehow useless, bad, and/or shouldn't be funded shows an ignorance to the importance of research on our day to day lives (never mind that most people don't know how hard it is to actually get funding... it's not like get gets handed out like candy on halloween)
I understand that science and studies are important. I agree. I am only alive because of some amazing research.
But I just don't see equating doing more than 10 pushups with lower CVD risk being on the same level as developing surgical techniques and smallpox vaccines. I think the money might have been more helpful somewhere else.
As the author pointed out, his baldness probably correlates quite well to CVD risk. Many institutions seem to forget, or maybe it is just the press messing up, that correlation does not equal causation. A strong correlation just shows that further study could be warranted. That is all.3 -
From the article you linked,No, your findings provide evidence that observational studies from Harvard are usually meaningless garbage dressed up as science. It’s a wonder anyone keeps funding these turkeys
It's as if people forget that the reason people live as long as they do, various hybridized plants exist, they can even buy protein powder, small pox has been eradicated, and they're able to, say, have any surgery that doesn't result sepsis is because of studies done at institutions like Harvard.
edit: I'm not saying that the study is good, but to use it as an example of why research in general is somehow useless, bad, and/or shouldn't be funded shows an ignorance to the importance of research on our day to day lives (never mind that most people don't know how hard it is to actually get funding... it's not like get gets handed out like candy on halloween)
I understand that science and studies are important. I agree. I am only alive because of some amazing research.
But I just don't see equating doing more than 10 pushups with lower CVD risk being on the same level as developing surgical techniques and smallpox vaccines. I think the money might have been more helpful somewhere else.
As the author pointed out, his baldness probably correlates quite well to CVD risk. Many institutions seem to forget, or maybe it is just the press messing up, that correlation does not equal causation. A strong correlation just shows that further study could be warranted. That is all.
Honestly I'm more than willing to bet that the money wasn't spent solely on this article. Most of the funding appears to have been related to occupational safety. Given the data they have, there are a number of papers that could have been written. A quick google search of one of the grant numbers that I didn't exactly expect to net useful results shows that to be the case. At least one of the authors (Kales) appears to have a primary research interest in the cardiovascular health of firefighters.
If I think about my own, very junior, scholar experiences with being a part of research groups that have gotten grant money, it doesn't make sense to say, "well we have this data, now we're going to write a single article from it."2 -
I read ^^^this^^^ article and I totally missed the smokers versus no smokers component before posting the original article.
Mark Twain probably said it best - There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The original article probably falls in the "statistics" category.1 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »I do like 200 some pushups twice a week just because it's a very easy and convenient way (for me) to supplement my Indoor Rowing. Though I do it throughout the day in sets of 20 to 25, I'm sure I could bang out over 40. This means nothing in terms of my risk of having a heart attack. I'm sure that Bob Harper could have done 60 pushups weeks before his heart attack. I'm not a huge fan of some of Bob Harper's workout tapes because many are too strenuous, but the guy was in incredible shape and still had a "widow maker" heart attack.
Bob Harper had an underlying hereditary medical condition that led to his heart attack, it wasn't due to his workouts.0 -
ExistingFish wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »I do like 200 some pushups twice a week just because it's a very easy and convenient way (for me) to supplement my Indoor Rowing. Though I do it throughout the day in sets of 20 to 25, I'm sure I could bang out over 40. This means nothing in terms of my risk of having a heart attack. I'm sure that Bob Harper could have done 60 pushups weeks before his heart attack. I'm not a huge fan of some of Bob Harper's workout tapes because many are too strenuous, but the guy was in incredible shape and still had a "widow maker" heart attack.
Bob Harper had an underlying hereditary medical condition that led to his heart attack, it wasn't due to his workouts.
That was kind of my point. He was in awesome shape, could likely do double the amount of pushups of most in the study, but still had a genetic condition that predisposed him. No correlation at all between pushups and heart attack in his case, which was what this study claimed.0 -
In a way, the pushups one (like, to perhaps a lesser extent, the squats and getting up from the floor ones) are especially goofy: That's something that's (I believe) objectively easier to do at a lighter body weight with respect to frame size.
That's exactly what I was thinking -- the underlying factors here are being lighter and having a better muscle to fat ratio. It's not surprising if that correlates to being more healthy overall, especially if one is a middle aged man with an active job, but doesn't mean that doing push ups vs. other exercises is meaningful.
I do think that remaining active and including strength-bearing exercises to maintain muscle mass as we age is going to be overall important.
So if I can do 82 consecutive pushups, will I have a 20 year free pass on heart disease? (IDK how many I can do, lol)
On a more serious note, I agree with the above. While there may be some entertaining cocktail party conversation around this study, its really of little use as far as I can tell. And I worry that too many in our "get fit quick" culture take these studies/ads/recommendations too literally and exaggerate their importance.2 -
From the article you linked,No, your findings provide evidence that observational studies from Harvard are usually meaningless garbage dressed up as science. It’s a wonder anyone keeps funding these turkeys
It's as if people forget that the reason people live as long as they do, various hybridized plants exist, they can even buy protein powder, small pox has been eradicated, and they're able to, say, have any surgery that doesn't result sepsis is because of studies done at institutions like Harvard.
edit: I'm not saying that the study is good, but to use it as an example of why research in general is somehow useless, bad, and/or shouldn't be funded shows an ignorance to the importance of research on our day to day lives (never mind that most people don't know how hard it is to actually get funding... it's not like get gets handed out like candy on halloween)
I understand that science and studies are important. I agree. I am only alive because of some amazing research.
But I just don't see equating doing more than 10 pushups with lower CVD risk being on the same level as developing surgical techniques and smallpox vaccines. I think the money might have been more helpful somewhere else.
As the author pointed out, his baldness probably correlates quite well to CVD risk. Many institutions seem to forget, or maybe it is just the press messing up, that correlation does not equal causation. A strong correlation just shows that further study could be warranted. That is all.
Honestly I'm more than willing to bet that the money wasn't spent solely on this article. Most of the funding appears to have been related to occupational safety. Given the data they have, there are a number of papers that could have been written. A quick google search of one of the grant numbers that I didn't exactly expect to net useful results shows that to be the case. At least one of the authors (Kales) appears to have a primary research interest in the cardiovascular health of firefighters.
If I think about my own, very junior, scholar experiences with being a part of research groups that have gotten grant money, it doesn't make sense to say, "well we have this data, now we're going to write a single article from it."
It was an interesting snippet of info on the firefighters. It just isn't worth a large amount, imo.
It's funny how risk goes up for the 31-40 push-ups category too. You are golden if you can do between 21 and 30 push-ups, or over 41 pushups, but your risk rises if you do 35 push-ups. 1 -
From the article you linked,No, your findings provide evidence that observational studies from Harvard are usually meaningless garbage dressed up as science. It’s a wonder anyone keeps funding these turkeys
It's as if people forget that the reason people live as long as they do, various hybridized plants exist, they can even buy protein powder, small pox has been eradicated, and they're able to, say, have any surgery that doesn't result sepsis is because of studies done at institutions like Harvard.
edit: I'm not saying that the study is good, but to use it as an example of why research in general is somehow useless, bad, and/or shouldn't be funded shows an ignorance to the importance of research on our day to day lives (never mind that most people don't know how hard it is to actually get funding... it's not like get gets handed out like candy on halloween)
I understand that science and studies are important. I agree. I am only alive because of some amazing research.
But I just don't see equating doing more than 10 pushups with lower CVD risk being on the same level as developing surgical techniques and smallpox vaccines. I think the money might have been more helpful somewhere else.
As the author pointed out, his baldness probably correlates quite well to CVD risk. Many institutions seem to forget, or maybe it is just the press messing up, that correlation does not equal causation. A strong correlation just shows that further study could be warranted. That is all.
Honestly I'm more than willing to bet that the money wasn't spent solely on this article. Most of the funding appears to have been related to occupational safety. Given the data they have, there are a number of papers that could have been written. A quick google search of one of the grant numbers that I didn't exactly expect to net useful results shows that to be the case. At least one of the authors (Kales) appears to have a primary research interest in the cardiovascular health of firefighters.
If I think about my own, very junior, scholar experiences with being a part of research groups that have gotten grant money, it doesn't make sense to say, "well we have this data, now we're going to write a single article from it."
It was an interesting snippet of info on the firefighters. It just isn't worth a large amount, imo.
It's funny how risk goes up for the 31-40 push-ups category too. You are golden if you can do between 21 and 30 push-ups, or over 41 pushups, but your risk rises if you do 35 push-ups.
When I put one of the grant numbers into Google Scholar it came back with 14 articles. So really this is just a drop in the bucket and who knows what the grant money was actually used for. Data storage, data entry, analysis, various software licenses that institutions weren't willing to pay for, etc.1
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
- 96.3K 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