Scapegoat of this decade: Sugar.
Replies
-
Maybe the point should be: what is considered to be a moderate amount of sugar? Or a "healthy" amount of sugar? How much is too much?? Unfortunately, here in the United States, there is so much sugar in everything. I don't think its eating a few apples or having a cupcake here or there that is driving up the obesity and diabetes. I personally think its a cumulative effect, eating alot of foods that have sugars added, and I'm talking about sugar in everything, like jarred pickles, ketchup, things that you would not suspect or think of as "sweet" have sugars added for flavor or preservative. When eaten in excess with other really sweet things like sodas, cakes, donuts, and then add the sedentary lifestyle, its a recipe for bad heath.
I think the debate is: what is a healthy amount? I know personally I go over almost everyday and I do worry about the health effects. Some say its no big deal, others say no sugar is best. I think its a hot button topic because there is so much conflicting information.0 -
Ed, so do you believe that it is a coincidence that the incidence of obesity started to rise so drastically with the advent of high fructose corn syrup in the U.S.? Do you think that we as a whole nation all the sudden decided to eat so much more and become diabetic from one day to the next?
Something drastically changed and one of the things that changed significantly is what we add to our food.
Look at the food labels.
And yes, I can imagine that there are many people that do polish away several soft drinks a day. And a lot of them are children. And if you pay attention you will notice how the food industry will market their sugar laden drinks (sports drinks , soda) and junk ( so called healthy cereal) to children. So I do not think that 6-7 non diet soft drinks or juices is that unrealistic for some. {In children, less would do the damage as they weigh less). You also have to consider that soft drinks are not the only things that contain HFCS . There are many other processed foods that do. And especially children that grow up in poor families do not necessarily have access to the best nutrition. Like I said, we are responsible for what we eat, but we as a society are also responsible to create an environment where people that may not have that much money should have access to decent food. And with the current policies we really belittle the real problem of obesity. The food industry really shirks its responsibility and lets society pay for the damage they cause by producing cheap and unhealthy food in order to keep their profit margin big (soda has a 90 % profit margin , fruits and vegetables 10% - the fruit and vegetable farmers get NO subsidies - imagine that). We as a society and individuals pay for this damage done by cheap inadequate nutrition by paying for increasing insurance premiums and sky rocketing medical costs. The food industry lobbies in Washington and makes sure that those who really advocate healthy nutrition get silenced while we as a nation get sicker and fatter every day. Our politicians and the USDA do not have enough backbone to do what would be in the public's best interest and subsidize what would be actually good for our health as a nation. Instead they subsidize what fills the deep pockets of some giants in the food industry that do not care what damage their products create. Along the way we damage not only the next generation, our biggest asset we have as a nation, but also our economy as we lose productivity, have rising healthcare costs and as employers contemplate moving jobs abroad because of rising health care premiums. We are way too short sighted when it comes to this issue.
I grew up in Europe, and I know that some of the additives that we are putting in our foods are not even allowed to be marketed there. We now have children that have type II diabetes, a thing that was not heard of a few years ago and many physicians fear that they will be the first generation with a shorter life span than their parents' generation. This is a huge problem and I do believe that HFCS is one of the culprits and needs to be addressed.
Just want to say I agree with all of this. You're the only person in here making sense, everyone else is blinded by the negativity that clinging to their precious added sugar causes. They can't imagine life without it, so they tear down those who knows the truth about how harmful it is.
You're very pretty, but you are wrong in this case.
I'll have to respectfully disagree.
Maybe you should try giving up sugar. You'll find that you'll feel better within a week, once your body purges itself of those toxins.
I'm sorry, I know that you are new, but I agree that you are totally wrong here.
However, you are very pretty :flowerforyou:
I'm pretty because I subcribe to a whole food diet that is low in added sugar. My hair is better than ever, my skin glows, my body feels amazing. Anyone could have these results if they were just willing to let go of their addiction to sweets and junk.
Correlation =\= causation
inorite. because nobody who ever embarked on a "whole" food low sugar diet ever simultaneously changed their activity levels which could account for those hair, skin, and body feels. also: supplements, hydration, adequate sleep, etc. and so forth all the things people change when they finally decide to get healthy.0 -
Ed, so do you believe that it is a coincidence that the incidence of obesity started to rise so drastically with the advent of high fructose corn syrup in the U.S.? Do you think that we as a whole nation all the sudden decided to eat so much more and become diabetic from one day to the next?
Something drastically changed and one of the things that changed significantly is what we add to our food.
Look at the food labels.
And yes, I can imagine that there are many people that do polish away several soft drinks a day. And a lot of them are children. And if you pay attention you will notice how the food industry will market their sugar laden drinks (sports drinks , soda) and junk ( so called healthy cereal) to children. So I do not think that 6-7 non diet soft drinks or juices is that unrealistic for some. {In children, less would do the damage as they weigh less). You also have to consider that soft drinks are not the only things that contain HFCS . There are many other processed foods that do. And especially children that grow up in poor families do not necessarily have access to the best nutrition. Like I said, we are responsible for what we eat, but we as a society are also responsible to create an environment where people that may not have that much money should have access to decent food. And with the current policies we really belittle the real problem of obesity. The food industry really shirks its responsibility and lets society pay for the damage they cause by producing cheap and unhealthy food in order to keep their profit margin big (soda has a 90 % profit margin , fruits and vegetables 10% - the fruit and vegetable farmers get NO subsidies - imagine that). We as a society and individuals pay for this damage done by cheap inadequate nutrition by paying for increasing insurance premiums and sky rocketing medical costs. The food industry lobbies in Washington and makes sure that those who really advocate healthy nutrition get silenced while we as a nation get sicker and fatter every day. Our politicians and the USDA do not have enough backbone to do what would be in the public's best interest and subsidize what would be actually good for our health as a nation. Instead they subsidize what fills the deep pockets of some giants in the food industry that do not care what damage their products create. Along the way we damage not only the next generation, our biggest asset we have as a nation, but also our economy as we lose productivity, have rising healthcare costs and as employers contemplate moving jobs abroad because of rising health care premiums. We are way too short sighted when it comes to this issue.
I grew up in Europe, and I know that some of the additives that we are putting in our foods are not even allowed to be marketed there. We now have children that have type II diabetes, a thing that was not heard of a few years ago and many physicians fear that they will be the first generation with a shorter life span than their parents' generation. This is a huge problem and I do believe that HFCS is one of the culprits and needs to be addressed.
Just want to say I agree with all of this. You're the only person in here making sense, everyone else is blinded by the negativity that clinging to their precious added sugar causes. They can't imagine life without it, so they tear down those who knows the truth about how harmful it is.
You're very pretty, but you are wrong in this case.
I'll have to respectfully disagree.
Maybe you should try giving up sugar. You'll find that you'll feel better within a week, once your body purges itself of those toxins.
I'm sorry, I know that you are new, but I agree that you are totally wrong here.
However, you are very pretty :flowerforyou:
I'm pretty because I subcribe to a whole food diet that is low in added sugar. My hair is better than ever, my skin glows, my body feels amazing. Anyone could have these results if they were just willing to let go of their addiction to sweets and junk.
So let me get this straight. When you were consuming sugar in moderation before your "whole food" diet that is low in added sugar but were possibly eating a diet moderate in added sugar...you were ugly?
I'm certainly more attractive now than I was before, yes. Being fit and healthy has greatly improved my image.0 -
OMG speaking of suger, I love those little balls they put on cookies...
those are almost pure sugar right? 0 -
There have been just as many studies showing the opposite. Look them up sometime.
"Just a carb" is a statement that ignores quite a bit. While low glycemic diets are comparable to moderate glycemic diets in terms of weight loss, there have also been studies showing the weight loss to be slightly more efficient. Which is more efficient, I really couldn't say. I can say from personal experience that moving to a lower glycemic diet did seem to spur my weight loss a bit, though not grossly so.
But more important to people like me, the glycemic index is very important for diabetic dieting, and also those with liver conditions. One loosely-controlled human study I read of showed that a high glycemic diet alone was sufficient for the onset of fatty liver disease. There was another better controlled animal study that had the same findings. Food for thought for all you. Both studies can be found via google.
Is it possible to lose weight while eating sugar? Sure. I wouldn't argue otherwise, I've done it myself. Is it just as good to lose weight on a diet of sugar versus a better balanced diet? Not for me.
I raise you actual studies.
Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.
www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism
Here are studies that show GI didn't make a significant difference
An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women
http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract
Conclusions: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results.
Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201
In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.
Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial
http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/4/1023.abstract?ijkey=57903af923cb2fcdc065ffd37b00a32e22f4c5cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Conclusions:These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.
No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862
CONCLUSION:
This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.
Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x/full
Summary
The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation
HFCS not linked to fatty liver disease
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/apnm-2012-0322#.UaPWA5G9KSN
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/y2012-122#.UaPW95G9KSM
"Recent research indicates an association between brain dysfunction and the pathogenesis of metabolic syndrome. To investigate this, we created a Medline search (up to December 2011) of articles in PubMed. The results indicated that refined carbohydrates, saturated and total fat, high levels of ω-6 fatty acids, and low levels of ω-3 fatty acids and other long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), all in conjunction with sedentary behaviour and mental stress can predispose to inflammation...."
EDIT: Formatting0 -
Honest question, and lets throw out type 1 diabetes from this. Do people who maintain healthy weights/body composition regularly develop insulin sensitvity/diabetes?
I don't know about "regularly", but yes, being overweight or overfat is not required to develop insulin resistance or diabetes. It probably happens a little later in life than if the person was overweight. I have several friends/relatives around my age (I'm 52) that have never had a weight problem and are now diabetic or insulin resistant.0 -
I think the debate is: what is a healthy amount? I know personally I go over almost everyday and I do worry about the health effects. Some say its no big deal, others say no sugar is best. I think its a hot button topic because there is so much conflicting information.
The EU have discussed a limit of 90g (18% of energy on a 2000 cal diet) for total sugars and observed that 45g is a typical adult intake of intrinsic or naturally occurring sugars from fruit, veg and dairy. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1008.pdf
Australia is also using a 90g/day GDA on labelling I think.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1017237-so-what-s-with-this-sugar-then-faq0 -
What real discussion? Claiming that "conventional wisdom" agrees with you proves that sugar is 'unhealthy' is a real discussion?
And they often also have not made any progress in years, yet they hold the magic answer.Man...this girls on a roll today ^^^^^
How do we trust someone with no face? It's always the faceless ones fighting the war against sugar.
Really, straw man arguments guys? You don't like what someone's saying so you're going to attack them personally?
Just to clarify, my choosing to no longer log food or monitor my progress with MFP doesn't mean I've made no progress in years.
Also, never said I had the magic answer. It's hardly a revolutionary idea to think that sugar is unhealthy - it's pretty much basic conventional wisdom at this point.
You don't do yourselves any favours by attacking posters rather than actually involving yourselves in the real discussion.
Your whole "it's either healthy or unhealthy" mentality is a big bucket of fail known as false dichotomy.
also it's not conventional wisdom it's just a recent trend in the past decade or so. awhile back we thought whole eggs were bad remember?
Real discussion about the place of sugar in the human diet. Stating that conventional wisdom right now agrees that sugar is unhealthy is simply part of that discussion. And conventional wisdom =/= correct; it just means that it's generally agreed upon by a large number of people - most people agree sugar is unhealthy. In this case I tend to believe it more than the belief that whole eggs were bad, since that belief was based on holding the cholesterol in eggs above all the benefits. Sugar has no benefits that I'm aware of (feel free to enlighten me if there are any health benefits to it) and only drawbacks, so for now I'm gonna stick with it actually being unhealthy.
I've stated this a couple of times, but I think of healthy and unhealthy as a scale, with some things healthier than others. A food being unhealthy doesn't mean it has no place in a human diet, just that it in and of itself is not conducive to good health (the actual definition of unhealthy). Sugar is one thing that has, so far as I've ever seen, no benefits to human health, and a host of drawbacks (that might be dependent on how much you ingest). That in my opinion makes it unhealthy.Saying sugar's unhealthy isn't just my opinion; it's backed up by numerous studies.I don't remember ANYONE arguing moderate amounts of sugar was unhealthy, by the way.
Right. So it's healthy in some quantities, and not healthy in excessive quantities.
Just like every other food.
Got it, thanks.
I think you're confusing "doesn't cause ill effects" with "healthy".
The way I look at defining things as healthy (as yes, I view healthy/unhealthy as a scale) is that it benefits your overall health (dictionary defines it as conducive to health). Just because a moderate amount of sugar (which, by the way, means you're limiting/moderating sugar, and thus going with my point that limiting/moderating sugar is a good idea) doesn't cause ill effects doesn't mean it benefits your health in any way. I've yet to see a single study showing sugar itself is healthy; there a numerous studies showing it's unhealthy (aka not conducive to good health). Yes, those studies are usually higher amounts of sugar, and I've said multiple times that having some sugar in an otherwise healthy diet isn't a big deal.0 -
Question: Since this is supposed to be about moderation.... how much is moderate?
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp
AHA is saying keep it to 100-150 calories of sugar a day, which comes out to like 25-38g a day.
So how much sugar is everyone eating?!
What counts as 'moderation?' Is it the 25g a day, which is apparently the recommendation of big American health institutes?
Checking out a few things and seeing that 1 pop tart gives you 17g, a banana gives you 14g, a regular-sized Snickers gets you 27g and a flavored Chobani greek yogurt will run you 19g.
Interesting to note.
I'd estimate my own sugar intake right around that 25-30g range per day, including fruit sugars.0 -
Brought to you by sugar.0 -
Question: Since this is supposed to be about moderation.... how much is moderate?
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp
AHA is saying keep it to 100-150 calories of sugar a day, which comes out to like 25-38g a day.
So how much sugar is everyone eating?!
What counts as 'moderation?' Is it the 25g a day, which is apparently the recommendation of big American health institutes?
Checking out a few things and seeing that 1 pop tart gives you 17g, a banana gives you 14g, a regular-sized Snickers gets you 27g and a flavored Chobani greek yogurt will run you 19g.
Interesting to note.
I'd estimate my own sugar intake right around that 25-30g range per day, including fruit sugars.
I average about 125g (up to 200 sometimes) a day. About 500 calories a day which is about 1/7th or <15% of my diet.0 -
Question: Since this is supposed to be about moderation.... how much is moderate?
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp
AHA is saying keep it to 100-150 calories of sugar a day, which comes out to like 25-38g a day.
So how much sugar is everyone eating?!
What counts as 'moderation?' Is it the 25g a day, which is apparently the recommendation of big American health institutes?
Checking out a few things and seeing that 1 pop tart gives you 17g, a banana gives you 14g, a regular-sized Snickers gets you 27g and a flavored Chobani greek yogurt will run you 19g.
Interesting to note.
I'd estimate my own sugar intake right around that 25-30g range per day, including fruit sugars.
I'm probably taking in 75-100g a day. Not from fruit.
I don't actually like most fruits. I do like ice cream though.0 -
This is an amazing thread. Can we expand it to include the real Food Devil: Gluten? Because I think there are some crazies out there we haven't heard from, yet.
I'll get us started. Gluten is the source of all nutritional evil. I heard about it at an anti-gluten support group I attend, then read some blogs and books that reinforced my views. Feel free to look it up, it's all over the internet, so it must be true. Plus I saw this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
Discuss!0 -
Question: Since this is supposed to be about moderation.... how much is moderate?
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp
AHA is saying keep it to 100-150 calories of sugar a day, which comes out to like 25-38g a day.
So how much sugar is everyone eating?!
I don't track sugar but the reports section says I averaged about 28g per day in the past 30 days, which has been pretty typical. The low was 15 and the high was 45.
I don't log on the weekends. But, while I generally consume more calories on the weekends, I don't eat much more sugar.0 -
Propaganda, really? Is that what we call personal opinions based on scientific studies. Also, yes, they're blog posts, but did you notice the part where I specifically stated that there are usually links directly within the blog to the science it's based on? Are textbooks now propaganda simply because they are a bringing together of information in one easy to access place? At least read things before you start making unintelligent criticism.
In late, but yes - that's almost exactly what we call the bolded.0 -
That's almost as relevant as this one:
I'm not sure I'm convinced that your graph of organic food sales' correlation to autism is relevant to the discussion of sugar consumption. I am, however, pretty convinced that a graph of US sugar consumption over time is relevant to the discussion.
And now I am convinced that you cannot tell the difference between correlation and causation :flowerforyou:
:huh:
I was convinced after his/her first post.0 -
There is absolutely nobody saying anywhere that people should eat a diet of sugar. The argument this thread makes is that sugar is NOT the bogey man it's made out to be. Macros, calories, and nutrients being equal, a person who consumes sugar will not suffer wild health problems and die just because they choose to include a soda in their daily meal plan, like the anti-sugar zealots try and claim. Just the fact that you make the claim that the choice is between a "balanced diet" and a "diet of sugar" shows a lack of understanding of the topic. You're using a logical fallacy called "excluding the middle." A balanced diet can easily contain sugar, and for a human being with no medical conditions, moderate amounts of sugar will cause no harm. One does not have to choose between eating a healthy, varied diet, or eating just sugar.There have been just as many studies showing the opposite. Look them up sometime.
"Just a carb" is a statement that ignores quite a bit. While low glycemic diets are comparable to moderate glycemic diets in terms of weight loss, there have also been studies showing the weight loss to be slightly more efficient. Which is more efficient, I really couldn't say. I can say from personal experience that moving to a lower glycemic diet did seem to spur my weight loss a bit, though not grossly so.
But more important to people like me, the glycemic index is very important for diabetic dieting, and also those with liver conditions. One loosely-controlled human study I read of showed that a high glycemic diet alone was sufficient for the onset of fatty liver disease. There was another better controlled animal study that had the same findings. Food for thought for all you. Both studies can be found via google.
Is it possible to lose weight while eating sugar? Sure. I wouldn't argue otherwise, I've done it myself. Is it just as good to lose weight on a diet of sugar versus a better balanced diet? Not for me.0 -
Propaganda, really? Is that what we call personal opinions based on scientific studies. Also, yes, they're blog posts, but did you notice the part where I specifically stated that there are usually links directly within the blog to the science it's based on? Are textbooks now propaganda simply because they are a bringing together of information in one easy to access place? At least read things before you start making unintelligent criticism.
In late, but yes - that's almost exactly what we call the bolded.
Really? Because according to dictionaries, propaganda means "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc."
I'm stating my personal opinion in what is supposed to be an intelligent discussion to represent a differing point of view. No deliberately wide spreading to help or harm anything here.0 -
The plausibility of sugar addiction and its role in obesity and eating disorders.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521
CONCLUSION:
There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
That doesn't have an opposing view. It just hypothesizes that since it is demonstrated in animal models it might be possible in humans.The plausibility of sugar addiction and its role in obesity and eating disorders.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056521
CONCLUSION:
There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
This is just a random study done by a doctoral student or some professor trying to support their claim for tenure. There are most likely many, many of the same types of studies done by other doctoral students with opposing views as well. Like this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17617461
All are pretty meaningless as far as 'proving' either claim.0 -
CONCLUSION:
There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sucrose may be physically addictive or that addiction to sugar plays a role in eating disorders.
But ... but ... that's going to hurt my plan of convincing you that you have a problem, so that I can sell you my "solution."
Come on now. That's Sales Tactics 101.0 -
-
Sugar and processed junk foods are the cheapest and most prevalent foods out there. Most product manufacturer's could care less about the effects on the health of the people who consume their products. Chronically overeating sugar can and does lead to very serious health issues. The bottom line is there are usually much better food choices than those laden with processed chemicals, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, wheat, etc.
Does this mean all sugar is evil? Of course not. Your body breaks down the foods you eat into sugars. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation about what really is healthy. Cereal boxes with 50 grams of sugar per serving tout how "heart healthy" they are because the first ingredient is whole wheat. Pretty much any product can get away with misleading information and people will buy it.
Yes you can lose weight by calorie restricting no matter what foods you eat. Is eating nothing but twinkies really the best option, though? People seem to equate overall health with body fat percentage or scale weight. There is a lot more to health than just appearance and the number on the scale.
For me, I limit the processed foods I eat not only because I wanted to lose weight, but I wanted to become more healthy. I'm going to eat a certain number of calories per day and the best choices for me are lean proteins, vegetables, occasional fruits, and healthy fats. This way I can still eat a lot of food, my insulin remains stable and sensitive, I get a lot of micro nutrients in my food choices, and my overall health improves. My blood pressure goes down. My cholesterol is lower. My weight is down.
No one is perfect and I will occasionally eat what I know is crappy foods if I decide I want to. But it is occasional, it's not a habit and "everything in moderation" just doesn't work for me personally.
Sugar is the scapegoat, and "gluten free" is the latest misleading craze to charge more for foods. There is a reason, however, that these things have become the focus. The trick is to research and learn what works best for you. Do not trust that food manufacturers have your best interests at heart.0
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