We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
TIL that I am NOT the only person who loves Diet Dr. Pepper, despite what my friends and family say!
1 -
Side question so what does science say about Splenda? Is the a derivative of chlorine and sugar? I love Coke Zero and Splenda but have heard mixed reports.
Honestly don't kniw a thing about Splenda but knowing what kind if rigor it takes to get FDA approval I personally would trust in its safety until I saw convincing evidence that it was somehow unsafe.
Not knowing anything about it not sure what you mean about chlorine and sugar.0 -
Thank you thank you thank you thank you! :flowerforyou:
I drink what I want!!
1 -
This post got sticky'd! So awesome.
0 -
Very informative post.
I like to keep my eating as "paleo" as possible, so I will still be avoiding the consumption of foods that may contain aspartame. However, I enjoy being informed and reading this gives me some reassurance about the subject, so thank you. 0 -
As for Diketopiperazine, a group of peptides, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical field for cardiovascular, anti-fungal, and anti-tumor needs.
However (and as a science minded individual) I'd like to create a little balance here - the DKP molecules are biologically active and do have risks. I was involved in the marketing and sales of two - maximal dosages, side effects are a real thing. Just because a molecule is used in pharma does not make it generally safe nor is the simple biochemistry of a reaction sufficient to understand what really occurs in a human population.
We've had drug withdrawals or sweeteners removed from market on more than one occasion due to this. Human physiological response goes beyond the petri dish. For example, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 is simple talcum powder. Remove a little water and you have Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 - commonly known as Serpentine or Lizardite. Also known as the deadly Asbestos. Cancer in a fiber. Here the form factor of the mineral is the primary issue not the biochemistry.
So while I agree that the possible quantities of DKP metabolized from drinking soda are insignificant (LD50 is somewhere in the 3000 mg/kg range...) - the argument that they are safe because they are used in pharma holds no water.
Btw, the use of LD50 as a measure of toxicity is insufficient - all pharma active drugs with or without significant side effects have dosages well below LD50 - it doesn't make them generally safe - it allows one to decide benefits/risk. And it certainly does cover selective cytotoxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, etc..
Remember Thalidomide? It is virtually impossible to reach LD50 levels and it was considered safe. Thankfully testing has evolved from the 60s - well beyond LD50 assays.
The reason Aspartame is considered safe is that it has been significantly tested in a variety of labs and with a variety of methods to cover those points. It is the single most tested additive ever submitted to agencies.
On the other hand, an individual may consider that the benefit to risk of an artificial sweetener (sweet at lower calories) vs (GRAS with PKU limitations) just isn't worth it. It might even be a reasonable well thought-out decision given the past failures of evaluation processes and the ever evolving bio-assay business.
Finally, even with a GRAS status pregnant women are recommended to not be taking Aspartame since it isn't possible to identify if the unborn child has PKU.
I consider Aspartame safe, I just think the discussion might go a little further. :drinker:
I believe that aspartame at moderate intake is considered safe during pregnancy unless the mother has PKU herself. These are current recommendations in my country, and the USA I think. It's not really about the child having PKU in utero.
Let's say that mum is a carrier and the child has PKU. As a carrier, she can still metabolise Phe, so that her blood levels are normal and the teratogenic effects don't occur in the baby. The baby's diet is then restricted at birth.
The issue is when the mum has PKU and doesn't restrict her diet through pregnancy. Blood levels of Phe are too high, it crosses the placenta and the teratogenic effects can occur. This would happen whether the child has PKU or not.
That's my understanding anyway.
Makes sense and it seems I remembered the FDA reco's incorrectly. I stand corrected.
However - given that PKU carrier status is likely silent and I would be cautious here.
That's the thing though, carrier status isn't important. Carriers can process Phe and therefore there is no excess Phe to affect the child in-utero even if the child does have PKU. PKU children are generally born with no issue at birth from their carrier mothers. It's only after birth when the child is ingesting proteins that Phe becomes an issue and needs to be controlled.
On the other hand, PKU mums (homozygotes) must control Phe during pregnancy because excess levels cross the placenta and act as a teratogen. This occurs whether the baby has PKU (homozygote) or not (heterozygote).
BTW, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just wanted to clarify. It's an interesting area (nutritional control of genetic metabolic conditions) and an area of interest of mine as I have both genetics and dietetics backgrounds. 1 -
Oh wow! Very informative. I had been wondering about aspartame myself. A guy I know said he cut out aspartame and sucralose and what he calls "fake sugars" and claimed to lose 40 pounds in a month. (He was about 290.) I didn't tell him this, but I think he lost that weight because he cut way down on calories, but he attributed the loss to the cutting out of fake sugars instead.
And if he weighed the same as a duck, he'd be made of wood. Thus, we could burn him as a witch...if we were in the business of burning witches, that is.
Hahaha! A fellow Python fan? Nice.0 -
As for Diketopiperazine, a group of peptides, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical field for cardiovascular, anti-fungal, and anti-tumor needs.
However (and as a science minded individual) I'd like to create a little balance here - the DKP molecules are biologically active and do have risks. I was involved in the marketing and sales of two - maximal dosages, side effects are a real thing. Just because a molecule is used in pharma does not make it generally safe nor is the simple biochemistry of a reaction sufficient to understand what really occurs in a human population.
We've had drug withdrawals or sweeteners removed from market on more than one occasion due to this. Human physiological response goes beyond the petri dish. For example, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 is simple talcum powder. Remove a little water and you have Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 - commonly known as Serpentine or Lizardite. Also known as the deadly Asbestos. Cancer in a fiber. Here the form factor of the mineral is the primary issue not the biochemistry.
So while I agree that the possible quantities of DKP metabolized from drinking soda are insignificant (LD50 is somewhere in the 3000 mg/kg range...) - the argument that they are safe because they are used in pharma holds no water.
Btw, the use of LD50 as a measure of toxicity is insufficient - all pharma active drugs with or without significant side effects have dosages well below LD50 - it doesn't make them generally safe - it allows one to decide benefits/risk. And it certainly does cover selective cytotoxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, etc..
Remember Thalidomide? It is virtually impossible to reach LD50 levels and it was considered safe. Thankfully testing has evolved from the 60s - well beyond LD50 assays.
The reason Aspartame is considered safe is that it has been significantly tested in a variety of labs and with a variety of methods to cover those points. It is the single most tested additive ever submitted to agencies.
On the other hand, an individual may consider that the benefit to risk of an artificial sweetener (sweet at lower calories) vs (GRAS with PKU limitations) just isn't worth it. It might even be a reasonable well thought-out decision given the past failures of evaluation processes and the ever evolving bio-assay business.
Finally, even with a GRAS status pregnant women are recommended to not be taking Aspartame since it isn't possible to identify if the unborn child has PKU.
I consider Aspartame safe, I just think the discussion might go a little further. :drinker:
I believe that aspartame at moderate intake is considered safe during pregnancy unless the mother has PKU herself. These are current recommendations in my country, and the USA I think. It's not really about the child having PKU in utero.
Let's say that mum is a carrier and the child has PKU. As a carrier, she can still metabolise Phe, so that her blood levels are normal and the teratogenic effects don't occur in the baby. The baby's diet is then restricted at birth.
The issue is when the mum has PKU and doesn't restrict her diet through pregnancy. Blood levels of Phe are too high, it crosses the placenta and the teratogenic effects can occur. This would happen whether the child has PKU or not.
That's my understanding anyway.
Makes sense and it seems I remembered the FDA reco's incorrectly. I stand corrected.
However - given that PKU carrier status is likely silent and I would be cautious here.
That's the thing though, carrier status isn't important. Carriers can process Phe and therefore there is no excess Phe to affect the child in-utero even if the child does have PKU. PKU children are generally born with no issue at birth from their carrier mothers. It's only after birth when the child is ingesting proteins that Phe becomes an issue and needs to be controlled.
On the other hand, PKU mums (homozygotes) must control Phe during pregnancy because excess levels cross the placenta and act as a teratogen. This occurs whether the baby has PKU (homozygote) or not (heterozygote).
BTW, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just wanted to clarify. It's an interesting area (nutritional control of genetic metabolic conditions) and an area of interest of mine as I have both genetics and dietetics backgrounds.
True, however variant PKU and what is now called non-PKU hyperphenylalaninaemia (I'm old, this was mild PKU in my genetics classes in the '80s) or mild HA. can be untreated and undiagnosed. These carrier/functional status may be present and while it doesn't lead to the severity of issues seen with maternal PKU, they do appear to lead to less than optimal development (I had to do some reading on that, ref on bottom). So screening and dietary constraint *might* be a good idea - well, in absence of prevalence data - caution is a good idea.
Then again, it also seems that there might not be significant impact or teratogenicity with mild HA. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/Supplement_4/1548.full.pdf) Soooo, I might be reaching with the above - I'll accept that. My own personal hypersensitivity to silent genetic disorders (Tay Sachs recessive carrier) and a still-birth experience couple with a science/research/Pharma background - makes me cautious to consider PKU as an all or nothing autosomal recessive, and always clinically characterized.
(Levy HL, Waisbren SE, Lobbregt D, et al. Maternal mild hyperphenylalaninaemia: an international survey of offspring outcome. Lancet. 1994;344:1589–1594)
Ps - be as "argumentative" as you like, I enjoy the learning/discussion opportunity.0 -
I'm not anti-aspartame, but I do find it odd, and perhaps a little inappropriate, that his is stickied on a fitness/calorie counting site. Is MFP somehow funded by an aspartame company?2
-
"Because it's too hard to pronounce" will not be acceptable...I do NOT think that expertise or background is proof that someone is correct so I invite anyone and everyone who is interested to look into this yourself. I just mention it because I know I will likely be asked.
Agreed - which is why I was curious as to your analysis of the anti-aspartame studies.
I'd be equally interested in someone who is anti-aspartame to explain exactly why they feel that way...but fair warning "because I read it on the internet" or "because it's hard to pronounce" will not be acceptable answers over science.
THANK YOU SO MUCH
Every time someone says "If you can't pronounce the ingredients, then it is bad for you" my eyes roll so far back inside my head. If that we the case, most 'unhealthy' food would be perfectly fine for me, since my Bachelor of Science has taught me how to pronounce complicated compounds. If you broke up an apple to it's 'ingredients' aka chemical composition, you'd see a lot of the same things you see on the back of packaging. Like, I can tell very easily most of these people have never studied food science when they say things like that. I'm all for eating organic, natural, earthy foods, but don't do it by being fear mongering.1 -
I'm not anti-aspartame, but I do find it odd, and perhaps a little inappropriate, that his is stickied on a fitness/calorie counting site. Is MFP somehow funded by an aspartame company?
Why would it be inappropriate?
The topic is brought up ad nauseam on the forums - isn't it a good idea to sticky a post that clearly breaks down the actual science about aspartame instead of people posting fear mongering blog post after blog post?
MFP is a calorie counting site, I don't see how sticky-ing a logical blog post about a calorie free sweetener can be considered odd?1 -
gotta reply just to track this thread... AWESOME post OP!!0
-
So yea....this is a great thread. I predict a roll.0
-
Fantastic post. I'm not familiar with you, OP, but I'll be paying attention to you now. You've responded to some very irrational points in a very calm, logical way. I also found your posts to be very clear.
Just a few thoughts:
Not sure why someone sarcastically asked "What else is healthy? MSG?" MSG is naturally occurring in tomatoes, some cheeses, etc. and has been found to be much less "horrible" than people have always thought. A small percentage of people still get signs of an intolerance, but like with all foods, that doesn't make it evil or horrible or suddenly "artificial" when it's studied and produced.
As for the constant headache + vision disturbances. Vision disturbances are associated with the aura of aura migraines. Unfortunately... migraines are still something of a mystery. People can establish triggers, which for some may be aspartame. For others, it could be nitrates. For others, it could be eating something tough (like nuts) that does it. It's amazing the range of things that can cause migraines for individuals. That doesn't make one of them inherently bad or evil; like with MSG, or allergies, you might just be unlucky with what triggers it for you. Unfortunately, my period resulted in migraines that would paralyze my face... does that mean periods are inherently evil and dangerous (WAIT, BAD EXAMPLE).
In all seriousness, though; remember, people, that our anecdotal experiences or our outlier status doesn't change the science. If you get a headache from Diet Dr. Pepper, it's probably because you have an unfortunate reaction (and/or because Dr. Pepper sucks).3 -
I was wondering about how artificial sweetener work. I'm guessing since it breaks down exactly like any food breaks down while being digested that the the reason one does not gain weight by consuming it (assuming they would gain weight from the alternative sweetener by over consuming, thus the industry making diet drinks for the new demand) would be because in this new molecular composition it tastes sweeter thus it is required to use much less of it than the alternative sweetener so not as many calories, thus not the cover consumption, thus not the weight gain? I've read some articles about artificial sweeteners (but don't even remember which ones) that seem to talk more about insulin issues than cancer or toxicity. I find this all very interesting and appreciate the conversation.0
-
I'm not anti-aspartame, but I do find it odd, and perhaps a little inappropriate, that his is stickied on a fitness/calorie counting site. Is MFP somehow funded by an aspartame company?
Why would it be inappropriate?
The topic is brought up ad nauseam on the forums - isn't it a good idea to sticky a post that clearly breaks down the actual science about aspartame instead of people posting fear mongering blog post after blog post?
MFP is a calorie counting site, I don't see how sticky-ing a logical blog post about a calorie free sweetener can be considered odd?
A. There're lots of science strong posts that don't get stickied on topics far more important than this.
B. The opposition has enough science based information to offer a counter.
It seems rather odd that of all the posts that could be stickied on this very popular board, some aspartame debate is it.0 -
Aspartame...because one particle of unobtanium has a nuclear reaction with the flux capacitor, carry the two, changing its atomic isotope into a radioactive spider.
3 -
B. The opposition has enough science based information to offer a counter.
I haven't seen it. If you know of this scientific based information with regards to toxicity of aspartame please post it here so it can be examined and discussed. No one has bothered yet and I have yet to find anything at all that remotely holds water.1 -
I'm not anti-aspartame, but I do find it odd, and perhaps a little inappropriate, that his is stickied on a fitness/calorie counting site. Is MFP somehow funded by an aspartame company?
I cannot comment towards the reasons this post was sticked because I didn't sticky it nor did I anticipate that it would be sticked. I really doubt MFP is somehow funded by aspartame though. I think it is funded by those ads above and to the right of these threads.
So far I haven't heard from those ads about aspartame, just tips for a tiny belly using this 1 wierd old tip and about how to lose 15 pounds in 21 days.4 -
A. There're lots of science strong posts that don't get stickied on topics far more important than this.
B. The opposition has enough science based information to offer a counter.
It seems rather odd that of all the posts that could be stickied on this very popular board, some aspartame debate is it.
Well the lack of stickied posts on "more important" topics has no bearing on this post, it simply shows that more posts may need to be stickied.
Plus people post multiple threads about diet soda on the forums everyday full of misinformation and fear mongering. I think stickiy-ing this thread can help clear up the forums and hopefully diffuse the misinformation.
The opposition can feel free to post right in this thread with their science based information, but page after page they have refused to...2 -
This content has been removed.
-
I was wondering about how artificial sweetener work. I'm guessing since it breaks down exactly like any food breaks down while being digested that the the reason one does not gain weight by consuming it (assuming they would gain weight from the alternative sweetener by over consuming, thus the industry making diet drinks for the new demand) would be because in this new molecular composition it tastes sweeter thus it is required to use much less of it than the alternative sweetener so not as many calories, thus not the cover consumption, thus not the weight gain? I've read some articles about artificial sweeteners (but don't even remember which ones) that seem to talk more about insulin issues than cancer or toxicity. I find this all very interesting and appreciate the conversation.
The reason diet soda is "diet" even though aspartame breaks down like anything else is because aspartame is about 700 times sweeter than sugar so you need 700 times less of it. It isn't that aspartame has zero calories it is that so little aspartame is used to sweeten a drink that its number of calories is negligible.
As I broke down in my post 180mg of aspartame is by weight about 162mg protein by weight. We know that protein is about 4 calories per gram so that means the aspartame in the soda is about 0.7 calories. That is so low they just call it zero. Actually I think with the aspartame is some carbs to bulk it when they add it so I think I've heard a can of diet soda actually has about 3 or 4 calories but that is low enough that they can call it zero.
I haven't really seen anything to support the idea that aspartame triggers insulin production. The assumption seems to be that because it tastes sweet our bodies would produce insulin but I am not sure that is actually true and not just based on "common sense" associated with how insulin is related to sugar and sugar tastes sweet and aspartame tastes sweet therefore...
I am not saying aspartame does not cause insulin production because I honestly don't know, I haven't seen anything to suggest that is true and I am skeptical since protein doesn't cause insulin production and aspartame is protein.0 -
Just to provide a little additional info. This is the full metabolic breakdown pathway for aspartame as it is currently understood.
If I am interpreting this correctly DKP can be a metabolic product from aspartame but under neutral to alkaline pH. Even then it is equilibrium with another metabolite aspartylphenylalanine and methanol. At acidic pH, in the stomach where aspartame will be metabolized upon ingestion, the pathway is towards breakdown to phenylalanine and aspartate. That would mean I suspect that DKP would also degrade to Phenylalanine and Aspartic acid under acidic conditions.
This figure is from the review cited here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/pubmed/17828671
Full disclosure I have not read the source literature Bell Labuza (1991) and Prodolliete Bruelhart (1993)0 -
B. The opposition has enough science based information to offer a counter.
I haven't seen it. If you know of this scientific based information with regards to toxicity of aspartame please post it here so it can be examined and discussed. No one has bothered yet and I have yet to find anything at all that remotely holds water.
Why would I waste my time? Equal is my friends. I'll leave that to the anti-aspartame crew to prove, I'm just noting the claims I've seen.
*shrugs* Just thought it was odd for some mod to sticky this topic, which isn't even all that controversial.0 -
But you've already played your hand. You see something you don't agree with and instantly assume corporate interests have paid someone off. Because Big Aspartame takes an interest in stickied threads on calorie counting forums.
Loosen your tin foil hat.
Oh yes, I was so anti-Big Aspartame as I sprinkled two packets of Equal on some not-sweet-enough-for-my-taste frozen berries just a few hours ago.
While wearing my tin foil hat, by the way.
You're so insightful and wise.0 -
Really interesting - Marking so I can read more later. Thanks OP. Nice to see real discussions based on facts instead of fear (even if i don't understand most of the science.)0
-
This makes me feel a little better. I drink diet coke instead of regular soda when I really really want something sweet and fizzy. But I was always worried about the aspartame...I'll still keep my soda drinking to a minimum, but still good to know!1
-
in - beter late than never, and I pointed my "aspartame is evil" people this direction too (not sure it'll change anything but I'm also anti-misinformation)0
-
Why would there be a difference in what type of rat they used? As long as the sample size was large enough and there was a test and control group, could you not measure the difference. If 45% of the control group developed tumors and 70% of the test group showed tumors, would that not prove a direct correlation with aspartame and tumors assuming all other factors are equal.0
-
Oh, interesting! Yes, I see your point re: the issue of milder 'silent' versions like HA because of different variants.As for Diketopiperazine, a group of peptides, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical field for cardiovascular, anti-fungal, and anti-tumor needs.
However (and as a science minded individual) I'd like to create a little balance here - the DKP molecules are biologically active and do have risks. I was involved in the marketing and sales of two - maximal dosages, side effects are a real thing. Just because a molecule is used in pharma does not make it generally safe nor is the simple biochemistry of a reaction sufficient to understand what really occurs in a human population.
We've had drug withdrawals or sweeteners removed from market on more than one occasion due to this. Human physiological response goes beyond the petri dish. For example, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 is simple talcum powder. Remove a little water and you have Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 - commonly known as Serpentine or Lizardite. Also known as the deadly Asbestos. Cancer in a fiber. Here the form factor of the mineral is the primary issue not the biochemistry.
So while I agree that the possible quantities of DKP metabolized from drinking soda are insignificant (LD50 is somewhere in the 3000 mg/kg range...) - the argument that they are safe because they are used in pharma holds no water.
Btw, the use of LD50 as a measure of toxicity is insufficient - all pharma active drugs with or without significant side effects have dosages well below LD50 - it doesn't make them generally safe - it allows one to decide benefits/risk. And it certainly does cover selective cytotoxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, etc..
Remember Thalidomide? It is virtually impossible to reach LD50 levels and it was considered safe. Thankfully testing has evolved from the 60s - well beyond LD50 assays.
The reason Aspartame is considered safe is that it has been significantly tested in a variety of labs and with a variety of methods to cover those points. It is the single most tested additive ever submitted to agencies.
On the other hand, an individual may consider that the benefit to risk of an artificial sweetener (sweet at lower calories) vs (GRAS with PKU limitations) just isn't worth it. It might even be a reasonable well thought-out decision given the past failures of evaluation processes and the ever evolving bio-assay business.
Finally, even with a GRAS status pregnant women are recommended to not be taking Aspartame since it isn't possible to identify if the unborn child has PKU.
I consider Aspartame safe, I just think the discussion might go a little further. :drinker:
I believe that aspartame at moderate intake is considered safe during pregnancy unless the mother has PKU herself. These are current recommendations in my country, and the USA I think. It's not really about the child having PKU in utero.
Let's say that mum is a carrier and the child has PKU. As a carrier, she can still metabolise Phe, so that her blood levels are normal and the teratogenic effects don't occur in the baby. The baby's diet is then restricted at birth.
The issue is when the mum has PKU and doesn't restrict her diet through pregnancy. Blood levels of Phe are too high, it crosses the placenta and the teratogenic effects can occur. This would happen whether the child has PKU or not.
That's my understanding anyway.
Makes sense and it seems I remembered the FDA reco's incorrectly. I stand corrected.
However - given that PKU carrier status is likely silent and I would be cautious here.
That's the thing though, carrier status isn't important. Carriers can process Phe and therefore there is no excess Phe to affect the child in-utero even if the child does have PKU. PKU children are generally born with no issue at birth from their carrier mothers. It's only after birth when the child is ingesting proteins that Phe becomes an issue and needs to be controlled.
On the other hand, PKU mums (homozygotes) must control Phe during pregnancy because excess levels cross the placenta and act as a teratogen. This occurs whether the baby has PKU (homozygote) or not (heterozygote).
BTW, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just wanted to clarify. It's an interesting area (nutritional control of genetic metabolic conditions) and an area of interest of mine as I have both genetics and dietetics backgrounds.
True, however variant PKU and what is now called non-PKU hyperphenylalaninaemia (I'm old, this was mild PKU in my genetics classes in the '80s) or mild HA. can be untreated and undiagnosed. These carrier/functional status may be present and while it doesn't lead to the severity of issues seen with maternal PKU, they do appear to lead to less than optimal development (I had to do some reading on that, ref on bottom). So screening and dietary constraint *might* be a good idea - well, in absence of prevalence data - caution is a good idea.
Then again, it also seems that there might not be significant impact or teratogenicity with mild HA. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/Supplement_4/1548.full.pdf) Soooo, I might be reaching with the above - I'll accept that. My own personal hypersensitivity to silent genetic disorders (Tay Sachs recessive carrier) and a still-birth experience couple with a science/research/Pharma background - makes me cautious to consider PKU as an all or nothing autosomal recessive, and always clinically characterized.
(Levy HL, Waisbren SE, Lobbregt D, et al. Maternal mild hyperphenylalaninaemia: an international survey of offspring outcome. Lancet. 1994;344:1589–1594)
Ps - be as "argumentative" as you like, I enjoy the learning/discussion opportunity.
So, reading the Lancet article it seems that generally there's no issue with HA, but with higher Phe concentrations, there could be some mild cognitive deficits in the children. I wonder if mums with higher Phe levels would have signs and symptoms like a milder version of PKU?
The other thing, I believe it's very rare, about 20-75 births per million..?
Fascinating though and I enjoy chatting and learning as well. :flowerforyou:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions