HOW MUCH SUGAR IS TOO MUCH?
Replies
-
I just remembered something.
A friend of mine on FB said to me, why eat a carrot? Eat a cookie. It has the same amount of sugar and it taste better. So I thought to myself. What am I getting vitamin and antioxidant wise from the cookie? Nada. I actually feel good after eating a carrot whereas I feel sluggish from a cookie.
So, there you have it. That was my scientific experiment. I could be a scientist!!!:bigsmile:
Because you get absolutely no nutrition from the rest of your diet and a cookie has absolutely no nutrition..sounds legit.
Mental health is also important.
I feel good after eating a cookie....that's my scientific experiment....sounds legit also.
Who are you to tell me I get no nutrition? I am a very healthy eater!
I posted my link, don't bother me till yours (not just you personally) is posted.
Thank you. Now I really have to work!!!
She was making the point that you should evaluate the nutrition of your entire diet, not the nutrition on a per food basis since you can get adequate nutrients in your diet and still have room for treats. For example if you ate 20 carrots today, and later you have to decide between a carrot and some ice cream, the ice cream could be the better choice over carrot #21.
Next, if you read your link closely the information it is based on comes from Robert Lustig.
Please see here:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Please note the references.
Thank you. I did not realize that someone's sarcasm meter would be quite that broken.0 -
I just remembered something.
A friend of mine on FB said to me, why eat a carrot? Eat a cookie. It has the same amount of sugar and it taste better. So I thought to myself. What am I getting vitamin and antioxidant wise from the cookie? Nada. I actually feel good after eating a carrot whereas I feel sluggish from a cookie.
So, there you have it. That was my scientific experiment. I could be a scientist!!!:bigsmile:
Because you get absolutely no nutrition from the rest of your diet and a cookie has absolutely no nutrition..sounds legit.
Mental health is also important.
I feel good after eating a cookie....that's my scientific experiment....sounds legit also.
Who are you to tell me I get no nutrition? I am a very healthy eater!
I posted my link, don't bother me till yours (not just you personally) is posted.
Thank you. Now I really have to work!!!
She was making the point that you should evaluate the nutrition of your entire diet, not the nutrition on a per food basis since you can get adequate nutrients in your diet and still have room for treats. For example if you ate 20 carrots today, and later you have to decide between a carrot and some ice cream, the ice cream could be the better choice over carrot #21.
Next, if you read your link closely the information it is based on comes from Robert Lustig.
Please see here:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Please note the references.
Thank you. I did not realize that someone's sarcasm meter would be quite that broken.
Now we're even for that one time.0 -
I wonder what health problems I'm supposed to have from my sugar consumption.
Since the thread was about the AHA recommendation, let's ask them:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp
"Added sugars contribute zero nutrients but many added calories that can lead to extra pounds or even obesity, thereby reducing heart health."
They don't recommend eliminating sugar from your diet. They do distinguish between added sugar and naturally occurring sugar. And they say that the negative health effect results from eating too many calories. Do you disagree with that?
I disagree with their premise insofar as it doesn't seem to pertain to those on a calorie-restricted diet (as most are who are using MFP to track their calories). For those not tracking calories, yes, cutting out a source of easy calories will likely lead to fewer total calories which would reduce obesity, but they present zero evidence that there is any benefit in an otherwise well-rounded, calorie-restricted diet. Their distinction between added sugar and naturally occurring is based on an assumption that people are not eating a well-rounded diet as well.
Is it generally good guidance for the general population? Sure, even if for the wrong reasons. There just doesn't seem to be any basis for applying it outside those specific parameters.0 -
I wonder what health problems I'm supposed to have from my sugar consumption.
Since the thread was about the AHA recommendation, let's ask them:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp
"Added sugars contribute zero nutrients but many added calories that can lead to extra pounds or even obesity, thereby reducing heart health."
They don't recommend eliminating sugar from your diet. They do distinguish between added sugar and naturally occurring sugar. And they say that the negative health effect results from eating too many calories. Do you disagree with that?
Does that article sound even slightly jumbled to you? It's typical wording by committee because no one wants to tell the general public the truth because they know the general public will only hear "sugar isn't bad " rather than "cut your calorie intake." These messages are not crafted for the more educated segment of the population.
Huh. Maybe. I thought it sounded like pretty reasonable advice. What I got from it was eating too many calories will make you gain weight, which is exactly what I read here. And eating too many foods with added sugar may contribute to eating too many calories, which would be clear to anyone tracking their food and trying to hit calorie and macro targets - like most people here. I thought it supported IIFYM completely. And I like how it makes a specific recommendation about moderating, but not eliminating added sugar from your diet - again, pretty much exactly what IIFYM is all about. But I could be wrong.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I wonder if this is what people felt like in the 80s when the prevailing wisdom was to avoid dietary fat. It must be bewildering for many people to try and navigate themselves around the nutritional landscape.
What does sugar have in common with fat? It makes food highly palatable.
What happens when you combine sugar with fat?
Mind = blown.0 -
I wonder what health problems I'm supposed to have from my sugar consumption.
Since the thread was about the AHA recommendation, let's ask them:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp
"Added sugars contribute zero nutrients but many added calories that can lead to extra pounds or even obesity, thereby reducing heart health."
They don't recommend eliminating sugar from your diet. They do distinguish between added sugar and naturally occurring sugar. And they say that the negative health effect results from eating too many calories. Do you disagree with that?
I disagree with their premise insofar as it doesn't seem to pertain to those on a calorie-restricted diet (as most are who are using MFP to track their calories). For those not tracking calories, yes, cutting out a source of easy calories will likely lead to fewer total calories which would reduce obesity, but they present zero evidence that there is any benefit in an otherwise well-rounded, calorie-restricted diet. Their distinction between added sugar and naturally occurring is based on an assumption that people are not eating a well-rounded diet as well.
Is it generally good guidance for the general population? Sure, even if for the wrong reasons. There just doesn't seem to be any basis for applying it outside those specific parameters.
That exactly what made me think it was right on. There are no claims that added sugar is bad in any way *other* than providing a lot of calories with no nutritional value. Their only reason for recommending moderation was to avoid consuming too many calories. None of the other claims that people here find annoying were made. Nothing about causing cancer or even directly causing heart disease. Just adding calories that have no nutritional value. If you drink a 12 pack of non diet soda every day, it would make it really hard (impossible?) to hit your calorie goal and your macros. I think that's the whole point and very much in keeping with IIFYM.0 -
lol....the sugar spam misinformation bot?
LOL exactly.
@sunofabeach - I feel like I've been raised on message boards since my adolescence and still have horrible troll radar
0 -
lol....the sugar spam misinformation bot?
LOL exactly.
@sunofabeach - I feel like I've been raised on message boards since my adolescence and still have horrible troll radar
lol - I'm not much of an expert myself there0 -
I lived in sugar/carb fear.
but since incorporating weights into my routine and starting running training I have been HANGRY
I now do a "modified" version of low carb..... there are no fruits and veggies off limits anymore. Somedays I go over on my sugars but it is coming from fruits and not candy bars.
I still wont touch bread, potatoes (only sweet potatoes), rice, crackers, etc. But there is no longer any fruit/veg off my menu.
why can you eat sweet potatoes and not regular potatoes?0 -
I think the point really is this:
sugar drives palatability. Palatability drives over consumption. Over consumption drives excess calories. Excess calories drives weight gain. Weight gain drives obesity. Obesity drives disease.0 -
I wonder what health problems I'm supposed to have from my sugar consumption.
Since the thread was about the AHA recommendation, let's ask them:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp
"Added sugars contribute zero nutrients but many added calories that can lead to extra pounds or even obesity, thereby reducing heart health."
They don't recommend eliminating sugar from your diet. They do distinguish between added sugar and naturally occurring sugar. And they say that the negative health effect results from eating too many calories. Do you disagree with that?
Does that article sound even slightly jumbled to you? It's typical wording by committee because no one wants to tell the general public the truth because they know the general public will only hear "sugar isn't bad " rather than "cut your calorie intake." These messages are not crafted for the more educated segment of the population.
Huh. Maybe. I thought it sounded like pretty reasonable advice. What I got from it was eating too many calories will make you gain weight, which is exactly what I read here. And eating too many foods with added sugar may contribute to eating too many calories, which would be clear to anyone tracking their food and trying to hit calorie and macro targets - like most people here. I thought it supported IIFYM completely. And I like how it makes a specific recommendation about moderating, but not eliminating added sugar from your diet - again, pretty much exactly what IIFYM is all about. But I could be wrong.
I don't see the focus on added sugars as necessary. At least it's not necessary for IIFYM, which wouldn't even have us bother counting sugars at all aside from tracking macros (carbs). I get what they're trying to do though, and understand that they're facing an uphill battle.
ETA: I just wish honesty was a bigger priority in public service messages0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Except low fat chocolate milk is actually a very good post exercise drink, with numerous evidence published in peer reviewed journal articles.
Milk is full of Lactose, not high fuctose corn syrup that is typically found in Coke. The combination of carbohydrate, milk protein, fluid, and electrolytes may promote muscle glycogen resynthesis and rehydration to speed recovery between exercise sessions. Though admittedly the reason that chocolate milk (over non chocolate because of its extra carbohydrates) is such a good drink is not well understood.
Citations: The Effects of Low Fat Chocolate Milk on Postexercise Recovery in Collegiate Athletes.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Volume 25(12), December 2011, pp 3456-3460
Chocolate Milk and Endurance Exercise Recovery: Protein Balance, Glycogen, and Performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Volume 44(4), April 2012, p 682–691
Effects Of Chocolate Milk Consumption On Leucine Kinetics During Recovery From Endurance Exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Volume 42(5) Supplement 1, May 2010, p 171
Improved endurance capacity following chocolate milk consumption compared with 2 commercially available sport drinks. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 2009, 34(1): 78-8
So yes. THAT American Heart Association.
Yes, because kids on that programme are involved in multiple sessions of glycogen depleting workouts per day and need an efficient method of refuelling to ensure their athletic performance does not suffer in between bouts of training.
The message is utterly misleading. The "health halo" isn't a good basis for making recommendations without appropriate context.
Well, low fat .chocolate milk being a good post exercise drink, as opposed to sports drinks, is not misleading. It's affordable and it's not all about glycogen. It's a good way to replenish carbohydrates and sodium lost in exercise and help with rehydration. Is it the best and only drink? Of course not, but it's still has its benefits. I would think comparing chocolate milk to pop would be more misleading like you did before.
Also, the AHA ISN'T promoting chocolate milk, you're confusing two different organizations. The AHA partnered with the NFL to create the Play 60 Challenge, promoting 60 minutes of active play. The NFL and the USDA and the NDC partnered to create a SEPARATE program called Fuel Up to Play 60, where there is no AHA involvement. That is where they push chocolate milk because well the USDA is a partner, of course they're pushing dairy.0 -
I just remembered something.
A friend of mine on FB said to me, why eat a carrot? Eat a cookie. It has the same amount of sugar and it taste better. So I thought to myself. What am I getting vitamin and antioxidant wise from the cookie? Nada. I actually feel good after eating a carrot whereas I feel sluggish from a cookie.
So, there you have it. That was my scientific experiment. I could be a scientist!!!:bigsmile:
LOL Thats not how science works btw. :bigsmile:
Its a little bit more complicated than by what you just stated above. You can start by reading this ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Also, regarding the carrot and the cookie, id eat the cookie. IIFIMM Vitamins and antioxidants? Theres a Flintstones for that. I prefer Dino. The only thing I feel after eating carrots is regret because I dont like the taste of them, so why eat something I dont like? The cookie will win every time, which leads me to my next thought.
Theres also a study regarding radishes versus chocolate which discusses a similar premise regarding the psychological impact of food choices regarding self-control, willpower and the ability to concentrate. Because unfortunately the food we choose to eat or do not eat, not only effects us physically, but psychologically as well. (Roy Baumeister's Chocolate-and-Radish Experiment)
This is why its recommended to never cut out foods you absolutely love; but instead figure out a way to still have them but fitting them into your goals. Those that try and go cold turkey and cut things out completely tend to either binge or "fall off the wagon" from time to time and seem to gain everything back once they go back to their old ways. Its actually pretty common. This includes all foods labeled as "taboo" (sugar, fast food, "processed food", whatever).
Everything in moderation, and if if fits in your goals, then more power to you all! Be Happy.0 -
There is no such thing in the world as "too much sugar."
At worst there is just too little insulin.0 -
I just remembered something.
A friend of mine on FB said to me, why eat a carrot? Eat a cookie. It has the same amount of sugar and it taste better. So I thought to myself. What am I getting vitamin and antioxidant wise from the cookie? Nada. I actually feel good after eating a carrot whereas I feel sluggish from a cookie.
So, there you have it. That was my scientific experiment. I could be a scientist!!!:bigsmile:
Because you get absolutely no nutrition from the rest of your diet and a cookie has absolutely no nutrition..sounds legit.
Mental health is also important.
I feel good after eating a cookie....that's my scientific experiment....sounds legit also.
Who are you to tell me I get no nutrition? I am a very healthy eater!
I posted my link, don't bother me till yours (not just you personally) is posted.
Thank you. Now I really have to work!!!
She was making the point that you should evaluate the nutrition of your entire diet, not the nutrition on a per food basis since you can get adequate nutrients in your diet and still have room for treats. For example if you ate 20 carrots today, and later you have to decide between a carrot and some ice cream, the ice cream could be the better choice over carrot #21.
Next, if you read your link closely the information it is based on comes from Robert Lustig.
Please see here:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Please note the references.
Thank you. I did not realize that someone's sarcasm meter would be quite that broken.
Now we're even for that one time.
*One* time?0 -
Well, low fat .chocolate milk being a good post exercise drink, as opposed to sports drinks, is not misleading. It's affordable and it's not all about glycogen. It's a good way to replenish carbohydrates and sodium lost in exercise and help with rehydration. Is it the best and only drink? Of course not, but it's still has its benefits. I would think comparing chocolate milk to pop would be more misleading like you did before.
The point I was making is that kids, and in reality their parents, are being persuaded that chocolate milk is somehow a good alternative to fizzy drinks - they give it a health halo - when in reality it probably isn't given its composition and the context within which it is being pushed.
The problem is assigning a health halo generally causes more consumption of the item which is perceived to be healthier unless the individual has a good level of understanding about nutrition (which most people sadly do not.) Therefore as an idea for tackling childhood obesity it is pretty poor. The likelihood is more calories and sugar will be consumed, not less.
Couple this with the unnecessary restriction which most traditional dieting causes which increases feeling of deprivation and leads to escalated likelihood of weight gain and bingeing and you have kids who are less healthy, not more so.Also, the AHA ISN'T promoting chocolate milk, you're confusing two different organizations. The AHA partnered with the NFL to create the Play 60 Challenge, promoting 60 minutes of active play. The NFL and the USDA and the NDC partnered to create a SEPARATE program called Fuel Up to Play 60, where there is no AHA involvement. That is where they push chocolate milk because well the USDA is a partner, of course they're pushing dairy.
No, the AHA has simply got into bed with the NFL and say absolutely nothing when the idea gets pushed (which smacks of a commercial interest as you rightly state.) Do you find that ethical? I don't. Parent will associate the Fuel Up program with the Play 60 one which is endorsed by the AHA and what do you think the impression they will gain from that will be? This is supported by the AHA so it must be good.
Not good enough.0 -
SideSteel: fighting irrational food phobia and indecipherable low res infographics with actual information and helpful practical advice, one post at a time.
Sidesteel has been my hero since my Join Date. :drinker:0 -
I drink chocolate milk after a run. I do think it's a better alternative than soda. It does have some nutritional value, as opposed to soda which, really, has none. It's like anything else - not something you should have too much of. But after a work out, it's actually a darn good "recovery" drink.0
-
I drink chocolate milk after a run. I do think it's a better alternative than soda. It does have some nutritional value, as opposed to soda which, really, has none. It's like anything else - not something you should have too much of. But after a work out, it's actually a darn good "recovery" drink.
Fair point and yes, it does. It is good in the right context for an informed individual.
Ok, I gotta go train. I may or may not have some chocolate milk
0 -
I guess it depends on how you look at it, I see your point. Personally milk would be the healthier choice, including physiologically.Well, low fat .chocolate milk being a good post exercise drink, as opposed to sports drinks, is not misleading. It's affordable and it's not all about glycogen. It's a good way to replenish carbohydrates and sodium lost in exercise and help with rehydration. Is it the best and only drink? Of course not, but it's still has its benefits. I would think comparing chocolate milk to pop would be more misleading like you did before.
The point I was making is that kids, and in reality their parents, are being persuaded that chocolate milk is somehow a good alternative to fizzy drinks - they give it a health halo - when in reality it probably isn't given its composition and the context within which it is being pushed.
The problem is assigning a health halo generally causes more consumption of the item which is perceived to be healthier unless the individual has a good level of understanding about nutrition (which most people sadly do not.) Therefore as an idea for tackling childhood obesity it is pretty poor. The likelihood is more calories and sugar will be consumed, not less.
Couple this with the unnecessary restriction which most traditional dieting causes which increases feeling of deprivation and leads to escalated likelihood of weight gain and bingeing and you have kids who are less healthy, not more so.Also, the AHA ISN'T promoting chocolate milk, you're confusing two different organizations. The AHA partnered with the NFL to create the Play 60 Challenge, promoting 60 minutes of active play. The NFL and the USDA and the NDC partnered to create a SEPARATE program called Fuel Up to Play 60, where there is no AHA involvement. That is where they push chocolate milk because well the USDA is a partner, of course they're pushing dairy.
No, the AHA has simply got into bed with the NFL and say absolutely nothing when the idea gets pushed (which smacks of a commercial interest as you rightly state.) Do you find that ethical? I don't. Parent will associate the Fuel Up program with the Play 60 one which is endorsed by the AHA and what do you think the impression they will gain from that will be? This is supported by the AHA so it must be good.
Not good enough.0 -
I just remembered something.
A friend of mine on FB said to me, why eat a carrot? Eat a cookie. It has the same amount of sugar and it taste better. So I thought to myself. What am I getting vitamin and antioxidant wise from the cookie? Nada. I actually feel good after eating a carrot whereas I feel sluggish from a cookie.
So, there you have it. That was my scientific experiment. I could be a scientist!!!:bigsmile:
LOL Thats not how science works btw. :bigsmile:
Its a little bit more complicated than by what you just stated above. You can start by reading this ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Also, regarding the carrot and the cookie, id eat the cookie. IIFIMM Vitamins and antioxidants? Theres a Flintstones for that. I prefer Dino. The only thing I feel after eating carrots is regret because I dont like the taste of them, so why eat something I dont like? The cookie will win every time, which leads me to my next thought.
Theres also a study regarding radishes versus chocolate which discusses a similar premise regarding the psychological impact of food choices regarding self-control, willpower and the ability to concentrate. Because unfortunately the food we choose to eat or do not eat, not only effects us physically, but psychologically as well. (Roy Baumeister's Chocolate-and-Radish Experiment)
This is why its recommended to never cut out foods you absolutely love; but instead figure out a way to still have them but fitting them into your goals. Those that try and go cold turkey and cut things out completely tend to either binge or "fall off the wagon" from time to time and seem to gain everything back once they go back to their old ways. Its actually pretty common. This includes all foods labeled as "taboo" (sugar, fast food, "processed food", whatever).
Everything in moderation, and if if fits in your goals, then more power to you all! Be Happy.
Nice post.
Tigersword posted, just sharing - http://www.cracked.com/article_20789_6-shocking-studies-that-prove-science-totally-broken.html/ - Hilariously awesome. 0 -
LOL, I loved the writing style........many truths there as well.Tigersword posted, just sharing - http://www.cracked.com/article_20789_6-shocking-studies-that-prove-science-totally-broken.html/ - Hilariously awesome.0 -
(Roy Baumeister's Chocolate-and-Radish Experiment)
Interesting....
Assuming it's this deal here?
http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/584/baumeisteretal1998.pdf
This looks like a good read. Thanks for posting about it, it's new to me anyways..0 -
You don't need scientific proof. Vegetables, fruits and lots of other carbs are basically sugar complexes. If eating it were toxic, don't you think even the "clean" eater should be dead by now? Toxic mean POISONOUS to the body if the dosage is high enough.Freaks come out of the woodwork when they hear the word sugar :huh:
Joanne, you definitely have balls starting a thread about sugar
I agree with you Joanne, added sugar is toxic. If someone has scientific proof to back up that it's not, I would honestly love to see it. Thank you
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I actually read about this guy who ate practically no solid food, and ate 2000 calories of added sugar each day in 25 cups of tea (and only 400 calories of real food). His lack of macros and micros resulted in a bodyweight like 90 lbs or something. It was on a British TV show apparently.
Apparently a "calorie" is not really a calorie after all. ;-)
So... I guess the takeaway is that, added sugar, in fact doesn't make one obese?
Or is it that added sugar is the magic weight loss pill that we've all been looking for?0 -
Really?Fruit?? of course not. Sugar is made up of glucose and fructose and fructose is the problem. It is NOT metabolized as glucose is... Simplicity does not need to be complicated. A healthy diet is low in sugar and that way of eating helps one to lose weight and maintain an ideal weight.. plain and simple
This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract. Research comparing pure fructose with pure glucose, although interesting from a scientific point of view, has limited application to human nutrition given that neither is consumed to an appreciable degree in isolation in the human diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
agree's! when I first lost 80 lbs I never counted sugar at all. I only ate a lil fruit every now and then. I had cut out all beverages except water and no sweets; except at a special birthday or something.0
-
I actually read about this guy who ate practically no solid food, and ate 2000 calories of added sugar each day in 25 cups of tea (and only 400 calories of real food). His lack of macros and micros resulted in a bodyweight like 90 lbs or something. It was on a British TV show apparently.
Apparently a "calorie" is not really a calorie after all. ;-)
So... I guess the takeaway is that, added sugar, in fact doesn't make one obese?
Or is it that added sugar is the magic weight loss pill that we've all been looking for?
Only take away from that anecdote is that one guy did something. Something that sounds stupid to me. 400 calories of food? Not for me. That would suck. Of course he lost weight if he burned more calories than he consumed. But that sounds like a crappy way to do it.
I'm never much compelled by the "one guy did this" stories. If it's a good idea, how come only one guy did it? I'd rather do what a whole boat load of people who were successful did. Just seems more likely to work than some anecdote about one guy who may have been just trying to make a point. I'm not trying to make a point - I'm trying to lose weight and get healthy.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
- 427 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