Debunking the Myth
Replies
-
Net intake of 2200 at 155 lbs and gaining 1 lb/month? Seems spot on.
Please point me to a calculator that shows a male with 140 LBM and a highly active lifetstyle has a TDEE of 2100 calories.
So basically this is a NEAT vs TDEE confusion topic.0 -
I feel like most people also do not grasp the fundamental difference between strength gains and muscle growth.
Well said!0 -
I don't think 'study of one' constitutes proof of anything.
Well that's not true, either. It only takes seeing one black swan to prove that not all swans are white.
That said, the OP is clearly making inaccurate claims.
A scientific study of N=1 is interesting, but proves nothing. Because SCIENCE.
I disagree. A legit test of n=1 can be used to test the position that something *never* happens. However, this was not legit. I'm not even sure OP fully understood the terms he was using.
If I were going to design a study looking at calorie allotment and body composition over a period of time, an n=1 would be interesting, and certainly I could tailor a plan for that individual. But I could never expect it to apply to the population as a whole. So yes, significant to the individual. And a starting point for further research.
Editing for spelling. *sigh*0 -
I don't think 'study of one' constitutes proof of anything.
Well that's not true, either. It only takes seeing one black swan to prove that not all swans are white.
That said, the OP is clearly making inaccurate claims.
A scientific study of N=1 is interesting, but proves nothing. Because SCIENCE.
I disagree. A legit test of n=1 can be used to test the position that something *never* happens. However, this was not legit. I'm not even sure OP fully understood the terms he was using.
If I were going to design a study looking at calorie allotment and body composition over a period of time, an n=1 would be interesting, and certainly I could tailor a plan for that individual. But I could never expect it to apply to the population as a whole. So yes, significant to the individual. And a starting point for further research.
Editing for spelling. *sigh*
"Never" only needs one counter. Doesn't have to apply to society in general.0 -
I should know better, but....
In.0 -
even pics would not show anything. Only lab analysis would be legit proof....unfortuanetly this fellow MFP member is probably trolling..but I am now living proof that muscle and strength gains can be acheived through an intense lifting regiment and a closely monitered intake even with a slight caloric deficit. Without getting into too much detail about mself, I can just tell you that I net under my TDEE every week, and every week I get bigger, stronger, and more defined.
Pics or it didnt happen0 -
People are ignoring the elephant in the room. The numbers could be reasonably accurate as is, if you count the elephant.
So far, I haven't seen anybody discuss this: body fat lost is not body fat that evaporated or magically disappeared. The body doesn't excrete fat, except perhaps through the pores of the skin, but nobody's skin is that oily. What happened to the fat was that the body burned it for energy. The original poster said they lost 67 lbs of fat. That's in the ballpark of 230,000 calories of fat. In six months (180 days), that's about 1,300 calories a day. That's not chump change.
Available calories = calories eaten + body fat burned (if any). For example, if a person eats 2000 calories and burns 1300 calories of body fat, they have a net intake of 3300 calories for metabolic processes of any kind. That's plenty of calories to build muscle unless you are riding in the Tour de France.
If a person's TDEE is 2500 calories, and they eat 2000 calories a day, that is a real calorie deficit, but if you add in that they also burned 1300 calories of body fat, then they have 800 calories over their TDEE for building muscle or growing hair, or whatever.
The people for whom this is a mystery are not burning enough glucose in their heads.0 -
There are so many myths in the diet world, like fat makes you fat and calorie in = calorie out. We can talk about it, but it seems the first thing people do when getting on a diet is buying ear plugs. Sooner or later they will figure out...
You've been here since July and lost zero pounds. Sounds like you have incredible advice.
To your information I lost well over 15 kilos (33 lbs) already! I have recently reset my ticker + it doesn't show what I have lost but how much I still have to go! Next to that I don't weigh myself so much anymore, I measure and recently lost another 3 cm waist! Next....
how did you lose weight if you did not do calories in vs calories out..? Liposuction?0 -
Yikes.....There are so many myths in the diet world, like fat makes you fat and calorie in = calorie out. We can talk about it, but it seems the first thing people do when getting on a diet is buying ear plugs. Sooner or later they will figure out...
You've been here since July and lost zero pounds. Sounds like you have incredible advice.0 -
People are ignoring the elephant in the room. The numbers could be reasonably accurate as is, if you count the elephant.
So far, I haven't seen anybody discuss this: body fat lost is not body fat that evaporated or magically disappeared. The body doesn't excrete fat, except perhaps through the pores of the skin, but nobody's skin is that oily. What happened to the fat was that the body burned it for energy. The original poster said they lost 67 lbs of fat. That's in the ballpark of 230,000 calories of fat. In six months (180 days), that's about 1,300 calories a day. That's not chump change.
Available calories = calories eaten + body fat burned (if any). For example, if a person eats 2000 calories and burns 1300 calories of body fat, they have a net intake of 3300 calories for metabolic processes of any kind. That's plenty of calories to build muscle unless you are riding in the Tour de France.
If a person's TDEE is 2500 calories, and they eat 2000 calories a day, that is a real calorie deficit, but if you add in that they also burned 1300 calories of body fat, then they have 800 calories over their TDEE for building muscle or growing hair, or whatever.
The people for whom this is a mystery are not burning enough glucose in their heads.
doesn't this assume that you are burning 100% fat...?0 -
People are ignoring the elephant in the room. The numbers could be reasonably accurate as is, if you count the elephant.
So far, I haven't seen anybody discuss this: body fat lost is not body fat that evaporated or magically disappeared. The body doesn't excrete fat, except perhaps through the pores of the skin, but nobody's skin is that oily. What happened to the fat was that the body burned it for energy. The original poster said they lost 67 lbs of fat. That's in the ballpark of 230,000 calories of fat. In six months (180 days), that's about 1,300 calories a day. That's not chump change.
Available calories = calories eaten + body fat burned (if any). For example, if a person eats 2000 calories and burns 1300 calories of body fat, they have a net intake of 3300 calories for metabolic processes of any kind. That's plenty of calories to build muscle unless you are riding in the Tour de France.
If a person's TDEE is 2500 calories, and they eat 2000 calories a day, that is a real calorie deficit, but if you add in that they also burned 1300 calories of body fat, then they have 800 calories over their TDEE for building muscle or growing hair, or whatever.
The people for whom this is a mystery are not burning enough glucose in their heads.
I don't think the body can metabolize 1/3 lb of fat/day. and if it did it would be for life sustaining functions and others such as hair, skin, nails, before it would go into building muscle mass.0 -
strength gains and muscle gains have nothing to do with one another...3) I never said that I haven't gained weight. I have gained 6-7 lbs. of lean muscle in the last 8 months while maintaining BF%
If you didn't lose weight, you are not eating below TDEE.
If you gained weight - which is what you appear to saying - you are actually eating above TDEE.
If you gained weight while maintaining the same body fat %age, you gained some fat.
Serious question - are you sure you know what these terms mean?
I am 155 pounds with a BF% somewhere between 7-9%. I work construction, have a 3 year old and an infant, don't sit down for about 14 straight hours every day and workout hard 4 times a week. I average a net intake of around 2200 calories. You guys tell me whether it should be possible to gain muscle mass with these specs based on your conventional wisdom. I bench 225, squat 285, curl 45's, and OHP 185. I have clear definition and well developed musculature. I am far from a noob. I cant explain why it is that this works for me, all I am saying is it does.
And to answer your serious question; I am about as knowledgable as you'll find in this forum. If there's one thing you can't question, it's my grasp of the concepts and terms discussed and professed herein. I am also willing to challenge them occasionally.
I squat 275lb and am a little lighter...and female...so? Not sure what strength has to do with the discussion.
How are you assessing BF%?0 -
strength gains and muscle gains have nothing to do with one another...3) I never said that I haven't gained weight. I have gained 6-7 lbs. of lean muscle in the last 8 months while maintaining BF%
If you didn't lose weight, you are not eating below TDEE.
If you gained weight - which is what you appear to saying - you are actually eating above TDEE.
If you gained weight while maintaining the same body fat %age, you gained some fat.
Serious question - are you sure you know what these terms mean?
I am 155 pounds with a BF% somewhere between 7-9%. I work construction, have a 3 year old and an infant, don't sit down for about 14 straight hours every day and workout hard 4 times a week. I average a net intake of around 2200 calories. You guys tell me whether it should be possible to gain muscle mass with these specs based on your conventional wisdom. I bench 225, squat 285, curl 45's, and OHP 185. I have clear definition and well developed musculature. I am far from a noob. I cant explain why it is that this works for me, all I am saying is it does.
And to answer your serious question; I am about as knowledgable as you'll find in this forum. If there's one thing you can't question, it's my grasp of the concepts and terms discussed and professed herein. I am also willing to challenge them occasionally.
I squat 275lb and am a little lighter...and female...so? Not sure what strength has to do with the discussion.
How are you assessing BF%?
That was my point
0 -
When in a calorie surplus, you never know if you're gaining fat or muscle.0
-
People are ignoring the elephant in the room. The numbers could be reasonably accurate as is, if you count the elephant.
So far, I haven't seen anybody discuss this: body fat lost is not body fat that evaporated or magically disappeared. The body doesn't excrete fat, except perhaps through the pores of the skin, but nobody's skin is that oily. What happened to the fat was that the body burned it for energy. The original poster said they lost 67 lbs of fat. That's in the ballpark of 230,000 calories of fat. In six months (180 days), that's about 1,300 calories a day. That's not chump change.
Available calories = calories eaten + body fat burned (if any). For example, if a person eats 2000 calories and burns 1300 calories of body fat, they have a net intake of 3300 calories for metabolic processes of any kind. That's plenty of calories to build muscle unless you are riding in the Tour de France.
If a person's TDEE is 2500 calories, and they eat 2000 calories a day, that is a real calorie deficit, but if you add in that they also burned 1300 calories of body fat, then they have 800 calories over their TDEE for building muscle or growing hair, or whatever.
The people for whom this is a mystery are not burning enough glucose in their heads.
Where did the OP state that?0 -
People are ignoring the elephant in the room. The numbers could be reasonably accurate as is, if you count the elephant.
So far, I haven't seen anybody discuss this: body fat lost is not body fat that evaporated or magically disappeared. The body doesn't excrete fat, except perhaps through the pores of the skin, but nobody's skin is that oily. What happened to the fat was that the body burned it for energy. The original poster said they lost 67 lbs of fat. That's in the ballpark of 230,000 calories of fat. In six months (180 days), that's about 1,300 calories a day. That's not chump change.
Available calories = calories eaten + body fat burned (if any). For example, if a person eats 2000 calories and burns 1300 calories of body fat, they have a net intake of 3300 calories for metabolic processes of any kind. That's plenty of calories to build muscle unless you are riding in the Tour de France.
If a person's TDEE is 2500 calories, and they eat 2000 calories a day, that is a real calorie deficit, but if you add in that they also burned 1300 calories of body fat, then they have 800 calories over their TDEE for building muscle or growing hair, or whatever.
The people for whom this is a mystery are not burning enough glucose in their heads.
OP is lean, gained weight, and thinks he did it at a calorie deficit.
Your "elephant in the room" scenario is based on an obese woman who shared a mostly-unrelated anecdote about gaining LBM while losing weight.0 -
strength gains and muscle gains have nothing to do with one another...3) I never said that I haven't gained weight. I have gained 6-7 lbs. of lean muscle in the last 8 months while maintaining BF%
If you didn't lose weight, you are not eating below TDEE.
If you gained weight - which is what you appear to saying - you are actually eating above TDEE.
If you gained weight while maintaining the same body fat %age, you gained some fat.
Serious question - are you sure you know what these terms mean?
I am 155 pounds with a BF% somewhere between 7-9%. I work construction, have a 3 year old and an infant, don't sit down for about 14 straight hours every day and workout hard 4 times a week. I average a net intake of around 2200 calories. You guys tell me whether it should be possible to gain muscle mass with these specs based on your conventional wisdom. I bench 225, squat 285, curl 45's, and OHP 185. I have clear definition and well developed musculature. I am far from a noob. I cant explain why it is that this works for me, all I am saying is it does.
And to answer your serious question; I am about as knowledgable as you'll find in this forum. If there's one thing you can't question, it's my grasp of the concepts and terms discussed and professed herein. I am also willing to challenge them occasionally.
I squat 275lb and am a little lighter...and female...so? Not sure what strength has to do with the discussion.
How are you assessing BF%?
That was my point
I was agreeing with you ...oh, I see what I did I quoted the wrong one..whoops...0 -
wow this is amazing.
all this time, I figured the only way a carbon based life form can grow into a larger, more complex carbon based life form is by acquiring more carbon.
you have renewed my hope for a perpetual motion machine in our lifetime0 -
People are ignoring the elephant in the room. The numbers could be reasonably accurate as is, if you count the elephant.
So far, I haven't seen anybody discuss this: body fat lost is not body fat that evaporated or magically disappeared. The body doesn't excrete fat, except perhaps through the pores of the skin, but nobody's skin is that oily. What happened to the fat was that the body burned it for energy. The original poster said they lost 67 lbs of fat. That's in the ballpark of 230,000 calories of fat. In six months (180 days), that's about 1,300 calories a day. That's not chump change.
Available calories = calories eaten + body fat burned (if any). For example, if a person eats 2000 calories and burns 1300 calories of body fat, they have a net intake of 3300 calories for metabolic processes of any kind. That's plenty of calories to build muscle unless you are riding in the Tour de France.
If a person's TDEE is 2500 calories, and they eat 2000 calories a day, that is a real calorie deficit, but if you add in that they also burned 1300 calories of body fat, then they have 800 calories over their TDEE for building muscle or growing hair, or whatever.
The people for whom this is a mystery are not burning enough glucose in their heads.
IF ONLY my body were willing to burn fat just for the pure joy of building muscles, instead of only accessing stored energy when it is not getting enough food to keep going. But alas.0 -
nope, apparently, they can grow while acquiring less carbon...wow this is amazing.
all this time, I figured the only way a carbon based life form can grow into a larger, more complex carbon based life form is by acquiring more carbon.
you have renewed my hope for a perpetual motion machine in our lifetime0 -
wow this is amazing.
all this time, I figured the only way a carbon based life form can grow into a larger, more complex carbon based life form is by acquiring more carbon.
you have renewed my hope for a perpetual motion machine in our lifetime
I think we're getting enough total molecules to account for far more gains than can be demonstrated on either side of this argument. It's the utilization that is in question.0 -
I'm not sure you tracked too well. It is possible to gain muscle while losing weight, but usually only for those who have a lot of extra fat to start with, because they can lose the fat, and gain some muscle, for example someone could lose 10 pounds of fat and gain 1 pound of muscle, and on the scale it will show that they lost 9 pounds. But if a person doesn't have the 10 pounds of extra fat to lose and they gain 1 pound of muscle, the scale is going to show a 1 pound gain.
Here is my story, better documented and tracked than what I can see of yours (you may have tracked everything, but you don't post that info for us).
6 months ago I was 51 pounds heavier than I am now. I also had a bodyfat percentage 53.8 percent. I now have a bodyfat percentage of 36.7. So 6 months ago I had a lean body mass of around 130 pounds and 152 pounds of fat (yuck!). Now I have 146 pounds of lean body mass, and around 85 pounds of fat. So I've lost 67 pounds of fat, and gained around 16 pounds of lean body mass for total weight loss of 51 pounds. I have been told by so many that is impossible to gain muscle while still losing weight, that you won't gain significant muscle if you are eating at the calorie deficit needed to lose pounds. Yet, over the past six months I have both lost pounds and gained muscle. So the self proclaimed "experts" who say you can't do that are full of it.
Now, while I fully agree that you can gain muscle while eating at a deficit, you have to have the extra bodyfat at the start. Your body will burn up that fat to supply some of the missing calories, also, you will lose fat, and gain muscle, but every time you gain a pound of muscle that means the scale can't go down a pound that week even if you lose a pound of fat that week. Its all math, and in the end the final number on the scale is going to be made of fat, muscle, skin, bone, water, blood, hair, etc. If you lose fat and gain and equal amount of anything else, the number on the scale won't change. Your bodyfat percentage might, your measurements might, but the scale won't.
Note the reason my ticker shows 53 pounds lost, instead of 51 pounds, is because my ticker starts from my highest weight, while the paragraph above is only dealing with weight loss/gain in the last 6 months.
Let me guess, you used BIA or some other inaccurate method of measurement?
16lbs of lean body mass gain in 6 months would be good. Good for a healthy male, eating a decent calorie surplus and involved in a heavy lifting program. 16lbs of lean body mass gained by a woman who is in a deficit and losing weight is impossible. No matter what miracle you think happened, it simply did not.
Here's an anecdote for you. According to my BIA scale, my LBM was 175.3lbs yesterday. Today it says 182.8. That's 7.5lbs of lean body mass gained in one day. I didn't even lift yesterday. It's magic!
So no, you didn't gain 16lbs of LBM. In fact, I would venture to guess that at BEST you maintained LBM and more likely than not you probably lost a little bit. For myself as an example, I've lost probably ~5lbs of LBM in losing 100lbs overall. Which is excellent., and I am very proud of it.
I never claimed my numbers were perfect, but comparing on the same device, over time, this is the change I saw. And yes, I know sometimes different things can scew the results, which is why I took the readings several days in a row, at the same time every day, to get the most consistent readings.
Lets say that my numbers were off, and I only gained 2-3 pounds of lean mass while losing the rest in fat, that is still awesome in my book. Even maintaining LBM while losing IS awesome. I believe I have gained lean bodymass, but I concede to the possibility that 16lbs is not completely accurate... even if was half that amount, I am happy with it.0 -
People are ignoring the elephant in the room. The numbers could be reasonably accurate as is, if you count the elephant.
So far, I haven't seen anybody discuss this: body fat lost is not body fat that evaporated or magically disappeared. The body doesn't excrete fat, except perhaps through the pores of the skin, but nobody's skin is that oily. What happened to the fat was that the body burned it for energy. The original poster said they lost 67 lbs of fat. That's in the ballpark of 230,000 calories of fat. In six months (180 days), that's about 1,300 calories a day. That's not chump change.
Available calories = calories eaten + body fat burned (if any). For example, if a person eats 2000 calories and burns 1300 calories of body fat, they have a net intake of 3300 calories for metabolic processes of any kind. That's plenty of calories to build muscle unless you are riding in the Tour de France.
If a person's TDEE is 2500 calories, and they eat 2000 calories a day, that is a real calorie deficit, but if you add in that they also burned 1300 calories of body fat, then they have 800 calories over their TDEE for building muscle or growing hair, or whatever.
The people for whom this is a mystery are not burning enough glucose in their heads.
Where did the OP state that?
The OP didn't, this person is referring to something I posted.0 -
wow this is amazing.
all this time, I figured the only way a carbon based life form can grow into a larger, more complex carbon based life form is by acquiring more carbon.
you have renewed my hope for a perpetual motion machine in our lifetime
I think we're getting enough total molecules to account for far more gains than can be demonstrated on either side of this argument. It's the utilization that is in question.
yes, because as anyone can tell you, matter and energy have nothing to do with each other.
has it occured to you that if you change "utilization", the person in question will exhale more carbon dioxide? carbon goes in as part of a more complex molecule (fat, protein, or carb), carbon goes out as CO2. The energy released by the change powers critters. That's what a lot of us heterotrophs are up to here on planet earth.0 -
People are ignoring the elephant in the room. The numbers could be reasonably accurate as is, if you count the elephant.
So far, I haven't seen anybody discuss this: body fat lost is not body fat that evaporated or magically disappeared. The body doesn't excrete fat, except perhaps through the pores of the skin, but nobody's skin is that oily. What happened to the fat was that the body burned it for energy. The original poster said they lost 67 lbs of fat. That's in the ballpark of 230,000 calories of fat. In six months (180 days), that's about 1,300 calories a day. That's not chump change.
Available calories = calories eaten + body fat burned (if any). For example, if a person eats 2000 calories and burns 1300 calories of body fat, they have a net intake of 3300 calories for metabolic processes of any kind. That's plenty of calories to build muscle unless you are riding in the Tour de France.
If a person's TDEE is 2500 calories, and they eat 2000 calories a day, that is a real calorie deficit, but if you add in that they also burned 1300 calories of body fat, then they have 800 calories over their TDEE for building muscle or growing hair, or whatever.
The people for whom this is a mystery are not burning enough glucose in their heads.
Thank you. I also said that I acknowledge that the readings could be a little off, so maybe I gained less lean bodymass than that, and lost more fat than that. My point was simply that it is possible to gain LBM while losing weight and eating at a deficit, but only for someone who a lot of extra bodyfat for their body to use as fuel, not for someone who is already lean.0 -
3) I never said that I haven't gained weight. I have gained 6-7 lbs. of lean muscle in the last 8 months while maintaining BF%
If you didn't lose weight, you are not eating below TDEE.
If you gained weight - which is what you appear to saying - you are actually eating above TDEE.
If you gained weight while maintaining the same body fat %age, you gained some fat.
Serious question - are you sure you know what these terms mean?
I am 155 pounds with a BF% somewhere between 7-9%. I work construction, have a 3 year old and an infant, don't sit down for about 14 straight hours every day and workout hard 4 times a week. I average a net intake of around 2200 calories. You guys tell me whether it should be possible to gain muscle mass with these specs based on your conventional wisdom. I bench 225, squat 285, curl 45's, and OHP 185. I have clear definition and well developed musculature. I am far from a noob. I cant explain why it is that this works for me, all I am saying is it does.
And to answer your serious question; I am about as knowledgable as you'll find in this forum. If there's one thing you can't question, it's my grasp of the concepts and terms discussed and professed herein. I am also willing to challenge them occasionally.
We're e-bragging with curling stats now?0 -
wow this is amazing.
all this time, I figured the only way a carbon based life form can grow into a larger, more complex carbon based life form is by acquiring more carbon.
you have renewed my hope for a perpetual motion machine in our lifetime
I think we're getting enough total molecules to account for far more gains than can be demonstrated on either side of this argument. It's the utilization that is in question.
yes, because as anyone can tell you, matter and energy have nothing to do with each other.
What does that have to do with anything? Is this where we just respond with random arguments with no relevance to the previous statement?0 -
wow this is amazing.
all this time, I figured the only way a carbon based life form can grow into a larger, more complex carbon based life form is by acquiring more carbon.
you have renewed my hope for a perpetual motion machine in our lifetime
I think we're getting enough total molecules to account for far more gains than can be demonstrated on either side of this argument. It's the utilization that is in question.
yes, because as anyone can tell you, matter and energy have nothing to do with each other.
What does that have to do with anything? Is this where we just respond with random arguments with no relevance to the previous statement?
i hit reply before i was done writing. i edited but you replied before I was done.0 -
wow this is amazing.
all this time, I figured the only way a carbon based life form can grow into a larger, more complex carbon based life form is by acquiring more carbon.
you have renewed my hope for a perpetual motion machine in our lifetime
I think we're getting enough total molecules to account for far more gains than can be demonstrated on either side of this argument. It's the utilization that is in question.
yes, because as anyone can tell you, matter and energy have nothing to do with each other.
What does that have to do with anything? Is this where we just respond with random arguments with no relevance to the previous statement?
i hit reply before i was done writing. i edited but you replied before I was done.
Changes in the gravitational pull as your body goes through recompostion can have an effect on how fat is distributed giving different BF% readings depending on moon phase also.0 -
wow this is amazing.
all this time, I figured the only way a carbon based life form can grow into a larger, more complex carbon based life form is by acquiring more carbon.
you have renewed my hope for a perpetual motion machine in our lifetime
I think we're getting enough total molecules to account for far more gains than can be demonstrated on either side of this argument. It's the utilization that is in question.
yes, because as anyone can tell you, matter and energy have nothing to do with each other.
has it occured to you that if you change "utilization", the person in question will exhale more carbon dioxide? carbon goes in as part of a more complex molecule (fat, protein, or carb), carbon goes out as CO2. The energy released by the change powers critters. That's what a lot of us heterotrophs are up to here on planet earth.
LOL
*sigh*
Best of luck in your search for that forest. You might want to stop staring at those individual trees so intently and walk out into a nearby field.
TL;DR - you are missing the point. Alternatively, you're so smart that I can't understand what you're trying to say (or how it is relevant to the current topic).0
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
- 96.4K 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