Am I unhealthy? BMI says I'm obese..
Options
Replies
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »There is a different BMI type calculation which uses height to the power of 2.5. Back in the day when BMI was invented powers of non-integers were hard to calculate, square is much easier.
The equivalent calculation is 1.3 * weight / height ^ 2.5, this gives a number about 0.8 lower than the normal calculation for my body, I'm 183 cm tall.
People can read about the new calculation here:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
There are a number of other indexes I've come across over the years, probably the most sophisticated which uses the height difference between shoulders and hips, and other measurements.
Interesting. I must be in some goldilocks zone because both numbers are exactly the same for me.
The difference is there but it isn't massive. About 4kg (~10lbs) or thereabouts for my height at 183cm (6 foot).
On the new scale 'Overweight' starts at 104kg (229lbs) and ends at 88kg (194lbs) with 87kg (192lbs) being 'Healthy' whereas the old scale Overweight starts 100kg (220lbs) and goes to 84kg (185lbs) with 83kg (182lbs) being top of 'Healthy'
Even ranges are spot on for me 18.5-25 are exactly the weights regular BMI calculators give me
Is it a twilight zone coincidence, he asks with tremor in his voice?
But, no, his google foo whispers, it's all as it were meant to be! The numbers 1.3 and 5734 are designed make the BMI reading unchanged for an adult of average height, which I take to be about 66.5 inches, i.e., 1.69 meters. (The square root of 1.69 is 1.3.) To find your "New BMI", try the New BMI Calculator written by Nick Hale. https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
That makes much more sense. The calculations were messing with my head.3 -
Pipsqueak1965 wrote: »Regardless of anything else, I can't imagine there are many 5'3" women, weighing 170 pounds, who aren't carrying quite a lot of fat. Particularly ones who have only recently started training, and don't eat very well.
i'm a 5' 3" woman. i have weighed 170 a couple times. right now, i'm definitely obese and working on it, with the smallest amount of thigh and calf muscle i've had in my entire life, but in the '90s, i was packed with muscle - legs included - and my waist was 5 inches smaller than it is now - at the same weight, but after spending several years lifting heavy. i had no double chin like i do now, either. no one would guess i'm the same weight if they could see me then and now. i'm guessing i've been an outlier on both sides of 170 - once higher in muscle and lower in fat than average and this time higher in fat and lower in muscle.3 -
There is a different BMI type calculation which uses height to the power of 2.5. Back in the day when BMI was invented powers of non-integers were hard to calculate, square is much easier.
The equivalent calculation is 1.3 * weight / height ^ 2.5, this gives a number about 0.8 lower than the normal calculation for my body, I'm 183 cm tall.
People can read about the new calculation here:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
There are a number of other indexes I've come across over the years, probably the most sophisticated which uses the height difference between shoulders and hips, and other measurements.
This is my new weight range according to this.
Your new BMI healthy range is
38.57 to 52.11 kgs.
There is no way I would consider myself healthy at under 40 kgs! I feel more comfortable with the current range between 41.5 and 55 kg, especially as I stop my periods under 42 kg.
4 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »There is a different BMI type calculation which uses height to the power of 2.5. Back in the day when BMI was invented powers of non-integers were hard to calculate, square is much easier.
The equivalent calculation is 1.3 * weight / height ^ 2.5, this gives a number about 0.8 lower than the normal calculation for my body, I'm 183 cm tall.
People can read about the new calculation here:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
There are a number of other indexes I've come across over the years, probably the most sophisticated which uses the height difference between shoulders and hips, and other measurements.
This is my new weight range according to this.
Your new BMI healthy range is
38.57 to 52.11 kgs.
There is no way I would consider myself healthy at under 40 kgs! I feel more comfortable with the current range between 41.5 and 55 kg, especially as I stop my periods under 42 kg.
Which is why I really don't think that BMI should be used for individuals, as this graph shows
The scatter graph shows that people of the same BMI can have vastly different body fat percentages.3 -
That new calculation is a bit sobering! It takes my range right down to 6st 3lb as opposed to the standard NHS calculator which gives the bottom weight as 6st 14lb. (?) why that is not the same thing as 7st has always puzzled me! 😂
On the other hand I suspect it is more accurate for us shorties. Just means I’ll adjust my goal weight down a bit, to be somewhere in the middle to lower end of that new range. 🙄3 -
Guys the "new BMI" which is not nearly as validated as waist circumference, waist-to-height, or waist-to-hip. is nothing more than an interesting curiosity at this point. All it does is correct for the issue I mentioned earlier, namely that tall people are "penalized" by BMI while often shorter people are considering themselves to be OK at the upper reaches of normal BMI when in fact they might still be over-fat.
What the bottom end of "new BMI" fails to take into account is that the bottom of healthy BMI was extended from 20 down to 18 in part to accommodate Asian populations and shorter individuals.
So with just as much apparent validation as the proponents of new bmi I can propose a "super new bmi" where the top end of the "normal range" uses the new bmi formula and the bottom end of the normal range is derived using the old bmi formula and we can all be happy!
BMI was not meant to be considered solely and in isolation. Do people use it this way? Sure they do. People often do things they shouldn't do!
<also: BMI is a continuum. also: BMI of 27 used to be considered healthy. also: the extra health risk between 25 and 27 ain't that large. also: the extra health risk to ME as an individual of moving from 23 to 23.5 may be INFINITE if 23 was where my fat level would nor create a stroke and 23.5 happens to be where it will. BMI looks at populations, not individuals. While the population of BMI 24.5 people may have normal health risks this doesn't mean that YOU ms bmi 24.5 have normal health risks if your body would have only been normal health risk at 24! Also it doesn't necessarily mean that YOU Ms. BMI 28.5 have appreciably increased health risks: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/risk.htm However for MOST people, being at a normal BMI level would be a good thing! >
As to fat percentage vs BMI: it is just a screening tool people. A screening tool used in addition to other criteria. Are you going to MRI everyone for their body composition and exact fat level and composition? Dexa scan them since it is less expensive and has less risks-but it still takes a technician and a machine-and infinitely more money than BMI! Dunk test them? (come for your physical ready for a swim)...6 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I am an RN and I do like the BMI tool - used in conjunction with clinical picture, ie seeing the actual patient.
Is usually blatantly obvious whether somebody has a very high BMI because they are have an unusual muscle mass, ie elite body builders - or they are plain old fat.
Yes I've seen people who are fit and healthy and BMI says overweight too - usually young active men who have a BMI of 27 or so.
They are the demographic often just above upper limits and still healthy.
Young women with BMI over 30,( ie OP) much less likely to be healthy weight.
Highly unlikely her BMI does not reflect true obesity, or at least significant overweight. As I said before.
The fact that BMI was first invented in 1830's doesn't change its validity. Maths hasn't changed and human body structure hasn't changed in that time.
I think it is really hard for a person to accept that they are obese and they cling onto anything they can to try and justify being an unhealthy weight. I am included in this they. I tried to kid myself for years that I simply had a large frame which meant I could still be healthy carrying around that extra weight. Once I got down to a healthy BMI I finally came to the realisation that my frame is anything but large. I was simply overweight.
It probably has to do with obesity being portrayed as a character flaw, not just a health risk. From a different perspective, as someone who has no self-esteem issues related to weight, I knew I was fat all along I just didn't care. Now, I know I'm still fat, and I prefer it. I don't feel the need to justify wanting to be an overweight BMI by saying I'm big boned (I actually am, but I'm also fat) because I don't feel it's something I need to be ashamed of.
This is why, personal opinion only, I don't like the BMI tool, because I did feel ashamed. Even as a nurse, telling people who look over weight, yeah fat, that they are morbidly obese feels terrible. Before I started here two years ago my BMI was morbidly obese. I also have g cup breasts Which are pretty damn heavy and hard on my back (Only lost one cup size after losing 17kg mind you), it was embarrassing because to look at me yes I was over weight, fat, I held my weight Differently as everyone does, obese, yeah OK, but Being told I was morbidly obese, when all we see is the stereotype of morbid obesity, can't move off the couch, chronically ill Etc it really did a number on my self esteem. I guess Everyone's entitled to disagree with our opinion, doesn't mean It's wrong for us. I have 10kg to go, I'm doing it for me and my health not because some scale says so.
Was it though the BMI or the label the issue? If you were being essentially labelled "fat" by whatever other tool, would it have changed anything?
Great question. I knew I was fat and needed to loose weight. Being told I was morbidly obese by any other tool would have elicited the same feelings. For me, it was the label. Its an easy straight forward tool to use of course, but on a societal and psychological level the "morbidly obese" label, can sometimes be associated with the image of someone sitting on a couch constantly eating, breathless, can barely walk, sagging round body ect. Which was not the case for me. So trying to take into consideration someone's mental health when telling them their BMI is morbidly obese, my mental health in this case, and those images that pop into my head and others, I was shocked, ashamed, disgusted and felt guilty. BMI doesnt take into account other aspects of a persons body, fat distribution, race etc That's why I question it sometimes. I hope that makes sense. I'm getting deep here lol4 -
Great question. I knew I was fat and needed to loose weight. Being told I was morbidly obese by any other tool would have elicited the same feelings. For me, it was the label. Its an easy straight forward tool to use of course, but on a societal and psychological level the "morbidly obese" label, can sometimes be associated with the image of someone sitting on a couch constantly eating, breathless, can barely walk, sagging round body ect. Which was not the case for me. So trying to take into consideration someone's mental health when telling them their BMI is morbidly obese, my mental health in this case, and those images that pop into my head and others, I was shocked, ashamed, disgusted and felt guilty. BMI doesnt take into account other aspects of a persons body, fat distribution, race etc That's why I question it sometimes. I hope that makes sense.
In a semi sensitive tone of voice... sorry, it doesn't make sense.
You would not object to a blood test that called you iron deficient on the basis that you prefer being called anemic. Or for that matter object to both anemic and iron deficient because it bring images of your elderly grandmother to your mind so you would prefer to be called oxygen transport factor deficient instead!
You are objecting to the label because of the cognitive load it carries for you. This is not an issue with the test that is being used to determine the level presumably because of a medical need to assess risk as opposed to a need to ridicule or discomfort the patient.
The only way around this would be for medical staff to start using more obscure terms to designate people who they consider to be carriers of excessively large excess energy reserves.
Look. Not every obese person sees their health impacted by their condition as soon as they hit the milestone and not every level of obesity carries the same risk. But, for most people, over time, the risks and impacts increase.18 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I am an RN and I do like the BMI tool - used in conjunction with clinical picture, ie seeing the actual patient.
Is usually blatantly obvious whether somebody has a very high BMI because they are have an unusual muscle mass, ie elite body builders - or they are plain old fat.
Yes I've seen people who are fit and healthy and BMI says overweight too - usually young active men who have a BMI of 27 or so.
They are the demographic often just above upper limits and still healthy.
Young women with BMI over 30,( ie OP) much less likely to be healthy weight.
Highly unlikely her BMI does not reflect true obesity, or at least significant overweight. As I said before.
The fact that BMI was first invented in 1830's doesn't change its validity. Maths hasn't changed and human body structure hasn't changed in that time.
I think it is really hard for a person to accept that they are obese and they cling onto anything they can to try and justify being an unhealthy weight. I am included in this they. I tried to kid myself for years that I simply had a large frame which meant I could still be healthy carrying around that extra weight. Once I got down to a healthy BMI I finally came to the realisation that my frame is anything but large. I was simply overweight.
It probably has to do with obesity being portrayed as a character flaw, not just a health risk. From a different perspective, as someone who has no self-esteem issues related to weight, I knew I was fat all along I just didn't care. Now, I know I'm still fat, and I prefer it. I don't feel the need to justify wanting to be an overweight BMI by saying I'm big boned (I actually am, but I'm also fat) because I don't feel it's something I need to be ashamed of.
This is why, personal opinion only, I don't like the BMI tool, because I did feel ashamed. Even as a nurse, telling people who look over weight, yeah fat, that they are morbidly obese feels terrible. Before I started here two years ago my BMI was morbidly obese. I also have g cup breasts Which are pretty damn heavy and hard on my back (Only lost one cup size after losing 17kg mind you), it was embarrassing because to look at me yes I was over weight, fat, I held my weight Differently as everyone does, obese, yeah OK, but Being told I was morbidly obese, when all we see is the stereotype of morbid obesity, can't move off the couch, chronically ill Etc it really did a number on my self esteem. I guess Everyone's entitled to disagree with our opinion, doesn't mean It's wrong for us. I have 10kg to go, I'm doing it for me and my health not because some scale says so.
Was it though the BMI or the label the issue? If you were being essentially labelled "fat" by whatever other tool, would it have changed anything?
Great question. I knew I was fat and needed to loose weight. Being told I was morbidly obese by any other tool would have elicited the same feelings. For me, it was the label. Its an easy straight forward tool to use of course, but on a societal and psychological level the "morbidly obese" label, can sometimes be associated with the image of someone sitting on a couch constantly eating, breathless, can barely walk, sagging round body ect. Which was not the case for me. So trying to take into consideration someone's mental health when telling them their BMI is morbidly obese, my mental health in this case, and those images that pop into my head and others, I was shocked, ashamed, disgusted and felt guilty. BMI doesnt take into account other aspects of a persons body, fat distribution, race etc That's why I question it sometimes. I hope that makes sense. I'm getting deep here lol
I’ve been just over the line into morbidly obese. I looked fairly normal, not like a Walmart cart person, but my health was suffering, even when it didn’t show. As a result I got type 2 diabetes. I was shocked and ashamed to receive a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Should the doctor have kept my diabetes diagnosis to himself to spare my feelings?
Morbid obesity - not regular obesity, morbid obesity - is wildly unlikely to be a healthy weight for any woman, because women aren’t ordinarily capable of building enough muscle to double their weight. In addition, that much extra weight is physically limiting simply because your body has to work around that much mass - you can’t bend in certain ways, you can’t stand with your ankle bones touching because your thighs are too fat, you can’t cross your legs. Morbid means that the obesity is great enough to qualify as a health condition on its own. It won’t kill you instantly like dropping an anvil on your head, but studies have shown that even healthy appearing people with morbid obesity are just playing a waiting game.16 -
I'm not saying conditions secondary to obesity or the significant health implications obesity has isn't an issue or unimportant at all. Or that bmi isn't an easy, straight forward tool that shouldn't be used. Or that people's feelings should be spared by not telling them they are much more predisposed to chronic health conditions because they are obese, over weight, morbidly obese. I simply answered the question. Yes, the label, for me, was an issue and sometimes, it's hard, telling patients that have NO idea they are actually morbidly obese, not Just "overweight" after using the BMI tool as an assessment. I've strayed way to far from the OP's post by discussing other issues related to BMI.3
-
I'm not saying conditions secondary to obesity or the significant health implications obesity has isn't an issue or unimportant at all. Or that bmi isn't an easy, straight forward tool that shouldn't be used. Or that people's feelings should be spared by not telling them they are much more predisposed to chronic health conditions because they are obese, over weight, morbidly obese. I simply answered the question. Yes, the label, for me, was an issue and sometimes, it's hard, telling patients that have NO idea they are actually morbidly obese, not Just "overweight" after using the BMI tool as an assessment. I've strayed way to far from the OP's post by discussing other issues related to BMI.
I’m sure it’s hard telling patients they have cancer! What does that have to do with anything? It’s something that sometimes needs to be done, and there’s no reasonable way to soft-peddle it and still get the information across with the correct amount of urgency.13 -
I just went up from 20.5 to 21.55 on that new BMI calculator. Range being 41.2-55.68 kilos, which sounds about right for my height. There are women with a much smaller frame than me, who could be perfectly ok at 41 kilos. I could stand losing a few myself (carry some fat round hips and thighs).0
-
BMI was never meant to be conclusive as a singular metric. Saying it falls down as a singular metric doesn't disprove it. That's like saying the front leg on your tripod is useless because it won't hold up your camera on it's own.
BMI was meant to be a general guideline statistically and then taken into consideration along with other health indicators to get a complete picture on the individual level. You look at BMI, weight, BF %, waist measurement, waist to hip ratio, blood pressure, A1C, heart rate, lung sounds, etc and come to a conclusion. There are situations where one or two of those metrics might not be optimal but the rest are fine so you don't have to worry about it.
It's also important to remember that "health" is not a yes or no proposition, it's a sliding scale. There are myriad variables that make you more or less likely to get myriad conditions. All the BMI range is trying to do, is get you into a statistically lower risk category. Just like there are lifetime smokers who get to 90 and never get cancer, or people who drunk drive and don't get in an accident, you can live outside the healthy BMI range and be healthy. You just have a statistically higher risk, based on demographic data.
I'd say if you are above the healthy BMI range, and don't want or think you need to get lower, focus on the other metrics. If the other metrics are also out of line, then you might want to reconsider your perception of health, or you might be fine just consciously accepting the additional risk you are taking on. You get to choose, though I suppose your insurance company might make you pay for that choice.17 -
Recent had a physical for a new insurance policy. The nurse calculated my BMI and I guess I'm obese... lol
We both had a good laugh3 -
BMI is only a general guideline. At the same time, it's the exceptions that make the rule right?
If it states you are obese I'm afraid you can take that as true. Or you'd be at least in the higher range of Overweight.
You've already lost a lot of weight, clearly what you're doing is working, so keep at it!4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I'm not saying conditions secondary to obesity or the significant health implications obesity has isn't an issue or unimportant at all. Or that bmi isn't an easy, straight forward tool that shouldn't be used. Or that people's feelings should be spared by not telling them they are much more predisposed to chronic health conditions because they are obese, over weight, morbidly obese. I simply answered the question. Yes, the label, for me, was an issue and sometimes, it's hard, telling patients that have NO idea they are actually morbidly obese, not Just "overweight" after using the BMI tool as an assessment. I've strayed way to far from the OP's post by discussing other issues related to BMI.
I’m sure it’s hard telling patients they have cancer! What does that have to do with anything? It’s something that sometimes needs to be done, and there’s no reasonable way to soft-peddle it and still get the information across with the correct amount of urgency.
Of course you're right. Likening telling patients they are fat or telling them they have CA though render completely different feelings, for me. I did Mean to imply, being told what sub group people sit in using BMI was important to educate the patient on the Increase risk of Co-morbidities and the severity being obese has on their health, I never said it wasn't. Just that from a personal psychological level, the context being bmi, a label and the question I was asked regarding how I felt knowing I was actually morbidly obese, I have empathy due to the way I felt when I did my BMI and i sat at morbidly obese, i just thought I was fat/over weight.2 -
I think it depends on how you feel & how your health is. I’m 5’3” and was up to 163. I’ve always done intense workouts 5x per week and my numbers at the doctors were immaculate ( perfect blood pressure, cholesterol, etc). While there didn’t appear to be a medical reason to lose weight, I just wasn’t feeling great about how I looked in my clothes. At 163, my clothing size was a 8-10- I think a lot has to do with where you carry your weight- I’m pretty hourglass-shaped. I’m (very slowly) losing weight using mfp. I’m at 148 now and feel much better getting dressed in the morning, including wearing form fitting gym clothes. I plan to lose 10 more pounds. But this is definitely vanity for me vs. a health issue.2
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »There is a different BMI type calculation which uses height to the power of 2.5. Back in the day when BMI was invented powers of non-integers were hard to calculate, square is much easier.
The equivalent calculation is 1.3 * weight / height ^ 2.5, this gives a number about 0.8 lower than the normal calculation for my body, I'm 183 cm tall.
People can read about the new calculation here:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
There are a number of other indexes I've come across over the years, probably the most sophisticated which uses the height difference between shoulders and hips, and other measurements.
This is my new weight range according to this.
Your new BMI healthy range is
38.57 to 52.11 kgs.
There is no way I would consider myself healthy at under 40 kgs! I feel more comfortable with the current range between 41.5 and 55 kg, especially as I stop my periods under 42 kg.
Which is why I really don't think that BMI should be used for individuals, as this graph shows
The scatter graph shows that people of the same BMI can have vastly different body fat percentages.
If the scatter graph is accurate, then the implication is that for women of BMI just over 30 (where OP is), it's quite unusual to have a BF% under 35%, which is at or (more commonly) above the BF% considered the healthy range for a 23-year-old, in most BF assessment schemes. Someone who's been training hard for a year is unlikely to have gained enough muscle mass from that short time to be an extreme outlier. Possible? Maybe. Likely? No.
In general, the scatter graph would seem to suggest that BMI often under-diagnoses excessive body fat in women, considering them to be in a normal BMI range when they actually have an above-optimal BF%.16 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »There is a different BMI type calculation which uses height to the power of 2.5. Back in the day when BMI was invented powers of non-integers were hard to calculate, square is much easier.
The equivalent calculation is 1.3 * weight / height ^ 2.5, this gives a number about 0.8 lower than the normal calculation for my body, I'm 183 cm tall.
People can read about the new calculation here:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
There are a number of other indexes I've come across over the years, probably the most sophisticated which uses the height difference between shoulders and hips, and other measurements.
This is my new weight range according to this.
Your new BMI healthy range is
38.57 to 52.11 kgs.
There is no way I would consider myself healthy at under 40 kgs! I feel more comfortable with the current range between 41.5 and 55 kg, especially as I stop my periods under 42 kg.
Which is why I really don't think that BMI should be used for individuals, as this graph shows
The scatter graph shows that people of the same BMI can have vastly different body fat percentages.
If the scatter graph is accurate, then the implication is that for women of BMI just over 30 (where OP is), it's quite unusual to have a BF% under 35%, which is at or (more commonly) above the BF% considered the healthy range for a 23-year-old, in most BF assessment schemes. Someone who's been training hard for a year is unlikely to have gained enough muscle mass from that short time to be an extreme outlier. Possible? Maybe. Likely? No.
In general, the scatter graph would seem to suggest that BMI often under-diagnoses excessive body fat in women, considering them to be in a normal BMI range when they actually have an above-optimal BF%.
I struggle with the accuracy of this as well. If I am reading it correctly it is really saying that the average female with a BMI of 20 has a body fat percentage of close to 30% with variations between 20% and 40%. That just does not seem correct.7 -
BMI was never meant to be conclusive as a singular metric. Saying it falls down as a singular metric doesn't disprove it. That's like saying the front leg on your tripod is useless because it won't hold up your camera on it's own.
BMI was meant to be a general guideline statistically and then taken into consideration along with other health indicators to get a complete picture on the individual level. You look at BMI, weight, BF %, waist measurement, waist to hip ratio, blood pressure, A1C, heart rate, lung sounds, etc and come to a conclusion. There are situations where one or two of those metrics might not be optimal but the rest are fine so you don't have to worry about it.
It's also important to remember that "health" is not a yes or no proposition, it's a sliding scale. There are myriad variables that make you more or less likely to get myriad conditions. All the BMI range is trying to do, is get you into a statistically lower risk category. Just like there are lifetime smokers who get to 90 and never get cancer, or people who drunk drive and don't get in an accident, you can live outside the healthy BMI range and be healthy. You just have a statistically higher risk, based on demographic data.
I'd say if you are above the healthy BMI range, and don't want or think you need to get lower, focus on the other metrics. If the other metrics are also out of line, then you might want to reconsider your perception of health, or you might be fine just consciously accepting the additional risk you are taking on. You get to choose, though I suppose your insurance company might make you pay for that choice.
I think whoever invented BMI is stalking this topic and hitting “disagree” with any comment that doesn’t worship BMI.
Your comment was perfectly reasoned on all fronts. Anyone disagreeing is either a willful troll or someone who is not qualified to sit at the adult table.
7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions