Harvard: Time to end the Low Fat Myth
Replies
-
You could totally eat Bacon with every meal and loose weight. Bacon is really filling and not crazy high in calories.Avoiding high fat foods is mostly a means to help reduce your calorie consumption. Fat has more calories per gram than protein or carbohydrates. SInce fats weigh in at twice the calorie per gram it's pretty easy to see that cutting back on fats will reduce your calorie intake
Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories
Too bad alcohol isn't free. :-(
Alcohol: 1 gram = 7 calories
TLDR; - Stay within your calorie goal.
I'm guessing you did not read the article. Fats keep you satiated far, far longer than an equivalent amount of carbohydrates. So you end up eating less overall, not more.
Your thinking here is misguided, and exactly the type of thinking the Harvard School of Public Health has decided to publicly fight against.
I didn't say you should avoid fats. Just eat whatever you like (within reason) and stay within your calorie goal. Fats aren't evil but that double Whopper with cheese is 1,000 calories. Don't go all in and have bacon for every meal.0 -
they are going to go "low protein" next and then I'm going to want to die. Seriously. It'll be sad.
First low fat-
now low-carb
we know it's coming.
And I'm going to be sad. So very very sad.
lol that would seem the likely trend, but seeing as how that is probably the one thing that most of the country doesn't over consume i'm hoping the crazies wont go there0 -
EAT ALL OF THE FATS!
Not really, but I loves me some full fat cheeses!0 -
Since this must have been missed before:
•In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of calories; (1) about 13 percent of adults were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2,3)
•Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (4) yet 34 percent of adults are obese and 11 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (5,6)
because portion size is a thing. the average meal was much much smaller in the 60s. if i'm going to get my protein in, 33% of cals from fat is pretty close to the right amount for the way i set my macros
Not to mention the increase in cars, fast food, drive throughs and general portion sizes.
correlation =/= causation.
Do you even have any concept of the rigorous review process an article of this nature has to go through before publication? Clearly you are more qualified as an MFP poster to assess the research design than a peer-review board at HARVARD. :huh:0 -
I
science. 0 -
Since this must have been missed before:
•In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of calories; (1) about 13 percent of adults were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2,3)
•Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (4) yet 34 percent of adults are obese and 11 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (5,6)
because portion size is a thing. the average meal was much much smaller in the 60s. if i'm going to get my protein in, 33% of cals from fat is pretty close to the right amount for the way i set my macros
Not to mention the increase in cars, fast food, drive throughs and general portion sizes.
correlation =/= causation.
they are going to go "low protein" next and then I'm going to want to die. Seriously. It'll be sad.
First low fat-
now low-carb
we know it's coming.
And I'm going to be sad. So very very sad.
If they do, beef and pork prices coming down... Steak with 2 sides of bacon please! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You missed where the Harvard researchers stated the calories are the important factor then.Since this must have been missed before:
•In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of calories; (1) about 13 percent of adults were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2,3)
•Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (4) yet 34 percent of adults are obese and 11 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (5,6)
because portion size is a thing. the average meal was much much smaller in the 60s. if i'm going to get my protein in, 33% of cals from fat is pretty close to the right amount for the way i set my macros
Not to mention the increase in cars, fast food, drive throughs and general portion sizes.
correlation =/= causation.
Do you even have any concept of the rigorous review process an article of this nature has to go through before publication? Clearly you are more qualified as an MFP poster to assess the research design than a peer-review board at HARVARD. :huh:0 -
Since this must have been missed before:
•In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of calories; (1) about 13 percent of adults were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2,3)
•Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (4) yet 34 percent of adults are obese and 11 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (5,6)
because portion size is a thing. the average meal was much much smaller in the 60s. if i'm going to get my protein in, 33% of cals from fat is pretty close to the right amount for the way i set my macros
Not to mention the increase in cars, fast food, drive throughs and general portion sizes.
correlation =/= causation.
they are going to go "low protein" next and then I'm going to want to die. Seriously. It'll be sad.
First low fat-
now low-carb
we know it's coming.
And I'm going to be sad. So very very sad.
first they came for my fats, but i said nothing
then they came for my carbs, but i still didn't speak up
and now they came for my protein, and all i have on my plate is this sad *kitten* piece of kale
:brokenheart:
@No Finish line... At the rate they are condemning red meats- I really wouldn't be surprised. They are getting over the top with these crap.0 -
Avoiding high fat foods is mostly a means to help reduce your calorie consumption. Fat has more calories per gram than protein or carbohydrates. SInce fats weigh in at twice the calorie per gram it's pretty easy to see that cutting back on fats will reduce your calorie intake
Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories
Too bad alcohol isn't free. :-(
Alcohol: 1 gram = 7 calories
TLDR; - Stay within your calorie goal.
Because there is no complex biological system to manage metabolism and prevent starvation in the human body; wrong.
There is FAR more going on than JUST calories in/out (in fact, that oversimplification of a complex system is so problematic that it actually proves false over and over and over). Avoiding fat because it is higher in calories can actually lead to eating more overall and/or more body fat storage. It does for me.
Fat is delicious and healthy, especially all those wonderful natural saturated fats that we have been told are so "bad" for us.0 -
Since this must have been missed before:
•In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of calories; (1) about 13 percent of adults were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2,3)
•Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (4) yet 34 percent of adults are obese and 11 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (5,6)
because portion size is a thing. the average meal was much much smaller in the 60s. if i'm going to get my protein in, 33% of cals from fat is pretty close to the right amount for the way i set my macros
Not to mention the increase in cars, fast food, drive throughs and general portion sizes.
correlation =/= causation.
they are going to go "low protein" next and then I'm going to want to die. Seriously. It'll be sad.
First low fat-
now low-carb
we know it's coming.
And I'm going to be sad. So very very sad.
Not likely. Low protein would severely cut into the protein powders and bars market meaning it would not be cost effective for those manufacturers who would fight a low protein movement tooth and nail!0 -
Eating fat is great, I eat tons of fat. Along with protein, it keeps me full. I also eat lots of carbs and I don't care how refined they are. As long as I'm under my calories and steadily losing weight, I'm gonna eat ALL the foods.0
-
I side with Harvard here but to be fair, the article isn't a study published in a peer reviewed journal. It's more of an opinion based on past research others did, posted on their own web site. Not that that isn't also authoritative.Do you even have any concept of the rigorous review process an article of this nature has to go through before publication? Clearly you are more qualified as an MFP poster to assess the research design than a peer-review board at HARVARD. :huh:
Go plant fat. Go calories.0 -
EAT ALL OF THE FATS!
Not really, but I loves me some full fat cheeses!
Yes please.0 -
Since this must have been missed before:
•In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of calories; (1) about 13 percent of adults were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2,3)
•Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (4) yet 34 percent of adults are obese and 11 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (5,6)
because portion size is a thing. the average meal was much much smaller in the 60s. if i'm going to get my protein in, 33% of cals from fat is pretty close to the right amount for the way i set my macros
Not to mention the increase in cars, fast food, drive throughs and general portion sizes.
correlation =/= causation.
Do you even have any concept of the rigorous review process an article of this nature has to go through before publication? Clearly you are more qualified as an MFP poster to assess the research design than a peer-review board at HARVARD. :huh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
I'd love to start seeing Starch Free food one day in most foods instead of fat free. That will be VERY interesting.
i suppose but it seems to me that the same principals would applie. i.e. what really matters is how many calories.
While calories do matter, I might have to disagree with you on this one, just from my personal experience. About two years ago I worked at a local gym and one of the trainers is actually a pro bodybuilder. The guy is huge and his body fat is ridiculously low. So I asked him about calories and the best way for me to lose body fat, since obviously he knows what he is doing about nutrition, and that's when I first learned calories matter, and knowing that will help you maintain, gain or lose body weight (fat or muscle), but starch/sugar is the one thing that will make you gain body fat the fastest, because.... (it causes your blood glucose levels to go up too fast, insulin to be released into the bloodstream and store the glucose as adipose tissue, yada yada yada...). Since then, I have played around with levels of fat and the amount of starchy food, and it is true. Controlling starch is key to effectively lose body fat.0 -
I just skimmed this and am in Agreement. I'd like to point out that SUGAR CONSUMPTION has also increased at a pace consistent with the obesity and diabetes rates. I completely agree that fat likely isn't the culprit for the obesity rates.
I think we need to have a revolution that better distinguishes what we consider a carb and we also need to look at the glycemic index. We need to delve deeper and define the sugars, fibers etc differently. There is a huge difference between 10 grams of Sugar and 10 grams of fiber... yet both are labeled as carbs. I won't gain weight from 10 grams of fiber, but if I consume 10 grams of sugar and don't burn it... it gets stored as fat.
Interesting to see when you look at the results of Dr.Tim Noakes High Fat, Low Carb diets... people are losing weight and losing medical ailments that plagued them for years.
Doesn't sound like a bad thing if you ask me.0 -
You missed where the Harvard researchers stated the calories are the important factor then.Since this must have been missed before:
•In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of calories; (1) about 13 percent of adults were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2,3)
•Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (4) yet 34 percent of adults are obese and 11 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (5,6)
because portion size is a thing. the average meal was much much smaller in the 60s. if i'm going to get my protein in, 33% of cals from fat is pretty close to the right amount for the way i set my macros
Not to mention the increase in cars, fast food, drive throughs and general portion sizes.
correlation =/= causation.
Do you even have any concept of the rigorous review process an article of this nature has to go through before publication? Clearly you are more qualified as an MFP poster to assess the research design than a peer-review board at HARVARD. :huh:
I know right. :laugh:
I didn't disagree that fat is sating and I don't believe in low fat
But to imply that the obesity crisis is purely caused by lack of fat in the diet as the only / main reason is absurd.0 -
Wow I bet if we try hard enough we could get this information out to people by sometime in the late 1990's.http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats-full-story/
It’s time to end the low-fat myth. For decades, a low-fat diet was touted as a way to lose weight and prevent or control heart disease and other chronic conditions, and food companies re-engineered products to be reduced-fat or fat-free, often compensating for differences in flavor and texture by increasing amounts of salt, sugar, or refined grains. However, as a nation, following a low-fat diet hasn’t helped us control weight or become healthier.
•In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of calories; (1) about 13 percent of adults were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2,3)
•Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (4) yet 34 percent of adults are obese and 11 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (5,6)
Why hasn’t cutting fat from the diet paid off as expected? Detailed research shows that the total amount of fat in the diet isn’t really linked with weight or disease. What really matters is the type of fat and the total calories in the diet. (7-15)
•Bad fats, meaning trans and saturated fats, increase the risk for certain diseases.
•Good fats, meaning monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, do just the opposite. They are good for the heart and most other parts of the body0 -
The only fats I pay any attention to is saturated and trans fats. Other than that I am not overly worried about it. I am more concerned with sodium being an issue than anything, other than my calorie intake that is.0
-
Since this must have been missed before:
•In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of calories; (1) about 13 percent of adults were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2,3)
•Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (4) yet 34 percent of adults are obese and 11 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (5,6)
because portion size is a thing. the average meal was much much smaller in the 60s. if i'm going to get my protein in, 33% of cals from fat is pretty close to the right amount for the way i set my macros
Not to mention the increase in cars, fast food, drive throughs and general portion sizes.
correlation =/= causation.
Do you even have any concept of the rigorous review process an article of this nature has to go through before publication? Clearly you are more qualified as an MFP poster to assess the research design than a peer-review board at HARVARD. :huh:
ummmm......NO0 -
I wonder if the prevalent perpetual smoking of cigarettes was a factor to lower percentages in the 60's.
Using data from so long ago is irrelevant.
Doesn't necessarily affect the rest of the research, I'm just saying don't use data from 54 years ago as a way to measure the differences. Job prosperity was also significantly different (more money to buy more food, different hours of work, more women in the workplace and not at home cooking wholesome meals), along with technology, etc.
Edit: Grammar and clarifications.0 -
I'd love to start seeing Starch Free food one day in most foods instead of fat free. That will be VERY interesting.
i suppose but it seems to me that the same principals would applie. i.e. what really matters is how many calories.
While calories do matter, I might have to disagree with you on this one, just from my personal experience. About two years ago I worked at a local gym and one of the trainers is actually a pro bodybuilder. The guy is huge and his body fat is ridiculously low. So I asked him about calories and the best way for me to lose body fat, since obviously he knows what he is doing about nutrition, and that's when I first learned calories matter, and knowing that will help you maintain, gain or lose body weight (fat or muscle), but starch/sugar is the one thing that will make you gain body fat the fastest, because.... (it causes your blood glucose levels to go up too fast, insulin to be released into the bloodstream and store the glucose as adipose tissue, yada yada yada...). Since then, I have played around with levels of fat and the amount of starchy food, and it is true. Controlling starch is key to effectively lose body fat.
while it could perhaps influnce how fast you see results, you should still lose/gain appropriate to the calorie intake.
your on to something with the blood sugar spike though. if there is a reason to demonize starches or any high GI food then its the risk of developing diabetes. but even that risk would be well controlled if one does not eat to the point where they are unhealthfully over weight0 -
Since this must have been missed before:
•In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of calories; (1) about 13 percent of adults were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2,3)
•Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (4) yet 34 percent of adults are obese and 11 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (5,6)
because portion size is a thing. the average meal was much much smaller in the 60s. if i'm going to get my protein in, 33% of cals from fat is pretty close to the right amount for the way i set my macros
Not to mention the increase in cars, fast food, drive throughs and general portion sizes.
correlation =/= causation.
Do you even have any concept of the rigorous review process an article of this nature has to go through before publication? Clearly you are more qualified as an MFP poster to assess the research design than a peer-review board at HARVARD. :huh:
I am aware.
Not impressed.
The review process for a basic piece like this to make it onto the Harvard media website is not like a scientific paper going through the peer-review process. They ask things like: are the statements factual, are there grammatical errors, do the ideas presented contradict in any way the position of the institution.
This is not the same as sending your data, calculations and conclusions to scientists in your field (possibly direct competitors) to have them picked apart in any way they can find. Even this process is hardly fool-proof. There are lots of lazy or incompetent scientists out there when it comes to reviewing papers.0 -
I'd love to start seeing Starch Free food one day in most foods instead of fat free. That will be VERY interesting.
i suppose but it seems to me that the same principals would applie. i.e. what really matters is how many calories.
While calories do matter, I might have to disagree with you on this one, just from my personal experience. About two years ago I worked at a local gym and one of the trainers is actually a pro bodybuilder. The guy is huge and his body fat is ridiculously low. So I asked him about calories and the best way for me to lose body fat, since obviously he knows what he is doing about nutrition, and that's when I first learned calories matter, and knowing that will help you maintain, gain or lose body weight (fat or muscle), but starch/sugar is the one thing that will make you gain body fat the fastest, because.... (it causes your blood glucose levels to go up too fast, insulin to be released into the bloodstream and store the glucose as adipose tissue, yada yada yada...). Since then, I have played around with levels of fat and the amount of starchy food, and it is true. Controlling starch is key to effectively lose body fat.
while it could perhaps influnce how fast you see results, you should still lose/gain appropriate to the calorie intake.
your on to something with the blood sugar spike though. if there is a reason to demonize starches or any high GI food then its the risk of developing diabetes. but even that risk would be well controlled if one does not eat to the point where they are unhealthfully over weight
Which is a major issue in this country. People can't control themselves, they are developing diabetes and too overweight. So yes, it does help with fast results, and it does help with diseases like diabetes. People are not educated about the importance of GI and the effects it has in the body.0 -
You'll want to be careful to get adequate salt -- adequate being 1 to 3 tsp. or roughly 3,500mg a day -- anything less or more than that and you're putting yourself at increased risk for "some health problems". In other words too much is bad but too little, like the 1,500mg limit commonly encouraged, is just as bad according to the CDC. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=18311The only fats I pay any attention to is saturated and trans fats. Other than that I am not overly worried about it. I am more concerned with sodium being an issue than anything, other than my calorie intake that is.
Low saturated fat and/or low salt diets are not healthful.0 -
Since this must have been missed before:
•In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of calories; (1) about 13 percent of adults were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2,3)
•Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (4) yet 34 percent of adults are obese and 11 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (5,6)
because portion size is a thing. the average meal was much much smaller in the 60s. if i'm going to get my protein in, 33% of cals from fat is pretty close to the right amount for the way i set my macros
As others have already been pointing out, calories in/calories out is an oversimplification. This is especially true when discussing data like this where the intake is not controlled, for instance, people not counting everything via tools like MFP.
Yes, people had smaller portions back then and therefore less calories, but that doesn't mean that this is the cause of less obesity/diabetes and somehow not caused by something else.
When you eat less net carbs (which will result in lower blood sugar) and especially when you eat more fat (which lets you satisfy yourself as you fill up on calories), you tend to not eat as much. This is in a sociological/average sense. Yes, you could always eat more on a high fat, low carb diet or eat less on a low fat, high carb diet, but doing the opposite on each respective diet is easier because of what your hormones (typically) tell your body to do. So sociologically, we can expect the group to eat more calories on this low fat, high carb diet and therefore be fatter.0 -
Since this must have been missed before:
•In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of calories; (1) about 13 percent of adults were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2,3)
•Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (4) yet 34 percent of adults are obese and 11 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (5,6)
because portion size is a thing. the average meal was much much smaller in the 60s. if i'm going to get my protein in, 33% of cals from fat is pretty close to the right amount for the way i set my macros
As others have already been pointing out, calories in/calories out is an oversimplification. This is especially true when discussing data like this where the intake is not controlled, for instance, people not counting everything via tools like MFP.
Yes, people had smaller portions back then and therefore less calories, but that doesn't mean that this is the cause of less obesity/diabetes and somehow not caused by something else.
When you eat less net carbs (which will result in lower blood sugar) and especially when you eat more fat (which lets you satisfy yourself as you fill up on calories), you tend to not eat as much. This is in a sociological/average sense. Yes, you could always eat more on a high fat, low carb diet or eat less on a low fat, high carb diet, but doing the opposite on each respective diet is easier because of what your hormones (typically) tell your body to do. So sociologically, we can expect the group to eat more calories on this low fat, high carb diet and therefore be fatter.
so you're saying that we can expect that the people that consume more calories will end up fatter?0 -
Here's an interesting economics paper suggesting that diet composition does matter. It certainly supports the low carb studies that time and time again show dieters spontaneously reducing their calories eating a low carb diet. I think it's foolish to ignore the role low fat diet recommendations may have impacted peoples satiety which in turn caused them to eat more overall.
"Recent clinical research has studied weight responses to varying diet composition, but the contribution of changes in macronutrient intake and physical activity to rising population weight remains controversial. Research on the economics of obesity typically assumes a “calories in, calories out” framework, but a weight production model separating caloric intake into carbohydrates, fat, and protein, has not been explored in an economic framework.
To estimate the contributions of changes in macronutrient intake and physical activity to changes in population weight, we conducted dynamic time series and structural VAR analyses of U.S. data between 1974 and 2006 and a panel analysis of 164 countries between 2001 and 2010. Findings from all analyses suggest that increases in carbohydrates are most strongly and positively associated with increases in obesity prevalence even when controlling for changes in total caloric intake and occupation-related physical activity.
Our structural VAR results suggest that, on the margin, a 1% increase in carbohydrates intake yields a 1.01 point increase in obesity prevalence over 5 years while an equal percent increase in fat intake decreases obesity prevalence by 0.24 points."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=22795030 -
Since this must have been missed before:
•In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of calories; (1) about 13 percent of adults were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2,3)
•Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (4) yet 34 percent of adults are obese and 11 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (5,6)
because portion size is a thing. the average meal was much much smaller in the 60s. if i'm going to get my protein in, 33% of cals from fat is pretty close to the right amount for the way i set my macros
As others have already been pointing out, calories in/calories out is an oversimplification. This is especially true when discussing data like this where the intake is not controlled, for instance, people not counting everything via tools like MFP.
Yes, people had smaller portions back then and therefore less calories, but that doesn't mean that this is the cause of less obesity/diabetes and somehow not caused by something else.
When you eat less net carbs (which will result in lower blood sugar) and especially when you eat more fat (which lets you satisfy yourself as you fill up on calories), you tend to not eat as much. This is in a sociological/average sense. Yes, you could always eat more on a high fat, low carb diet or eat less on a low fat, high carb diet, but doing the opposite on each respective diet is easier because of what your hormones (typically) tell your body to do. So sociologically, we can expect the group to eat more calories on this low fat, high carb diet and therefore be fatter.
so you're saying that we can expect that the people that consume more calories will end up fatter?
I'm saying what you eat can affect how much you eat, which can affect how much you weigh.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 438 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
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions