A Call for a Low-Carb Diet
Replies
-
Why is it when people speak of carbs and insulin response they don't also add that protein generates an insulin response? Because you do realize it does right?There are benefits...for some people...but one of those benefits is not magical calories. And that's basically the TL;DR of the thread.
That's a very good point - and one of the questions I've always had with the plan.
But protein and fat trigger feelings of satiety, carbs trigger insulin which triggers more hunger.
The end result is you don't eat as many calories due to not wanting to - as opposed to having to force yourself to stop. IME it's a self-correcting system.
True, but that's why it's low-carb-high-FAT, not high-PROTEIN. But the weight gain isn't due to protein's insulin spike, it's the unused carbs being shuttled off for storage. And a resulting interference with leptin keeping you from realizing you're full and should stop.
(It also explains why I never had much luck with Atkins, years ago when I gave that a stab.)0 -
All you people who don't believe in the low carb diet obviously don't have health issues. It's like the thin person who says "I've Never had to diet in my life!" Well thanks. Nice to know. In the real world people aren't all the same. I always knew I didn't eat that much and yet I've always struggled with my weight as an adult. With myfitnesspal I have for the first time ever tracked calories. And I'm under nearly every day. But I concentrated so much on the calories that I was over the 50g per day of carbs that I try to stick to. And the weight started creeping back on. Since doing low carb my borderline thyroid is healthy, my PCOS has cleared and so has my insulin resistance. So don't dismiss sth just because You don't need it.
I guess people should add the caveat that "unless you have a medical issue in which lowering your carb intake is needed, such as..." I would have thought that was common sense since the study would have been geared toward the general public. That being said, GOOD FOR YOU for doing that and clearing up your med issues. That is amazing. If I had to cut carbs I'd probably go batsh*t crazy. LOL0 -
Yeah, glycogen storage, not fat storage
Why is it when people speak of carbs and insulin response they don't also add that protein generates an insulin response? Because you do realize it does right?There are benefits...for some people...but one of those benefits is not magical calories. And that's basically the TL;DR of the thread.
That's a very good point - and one of the questions I've always had with the plan.
But protein and fat trigger feelings of satiety, carbs trigger insulin which triggers more hunger.
The end result is you don't eat as many calories due to not wanting to - as opposed to having to force yourself to stop. IME it's a self-correcting system.
True, but that's why it's low-carb-high-FAT, not high-PROTEIN. But the weight gain isn't due to protein's insulin spike, it's the unused carbs being shuttled off for storage. And a resulting interference with leptin keeping you from realizing you're full and should stop.
(It also explains why I never had much luck with Atkins, years ago when I gave that a stab.)0 -
Why is it when people speak of carbs and insulin response they don't also add that protein generates an insulin response? Because you do realize it does right?
Insulin triggers muscle building. I don't know where it's got the reputation of being some bad thing that we should avoid. It's a critical metabolic step.
I DID NOT KNOW THAT.
THAT IS AWESOME. Thank you!
I think it also speaks to why it comes out to play when you eat protein.
(I found http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/the-muscle-building-messenger-complete-guide-to-insulin.html - interesting stuff...)0 -
Why is it when people speak of carbs and insulin response they don't also add that protein generates an insulin response? Because you do realize it does right?There are benefits...for some people...but one of those benefits is not magical calories. And that's basically the TL;DR of the thread.
That's a very good point - and one of the questions I've always had with the plan.
But protein and fat trigger feelings of satiety, carbs trigger insulin which triggers more hunger.
The end result is you don't eat as many calories due to not wanting to - as opposed to having to force yourself to stop. IME it's a self-correcting system.
Whey protein? Apparently different proteins react differently too. I read that it doesn't exactly do the same thing to your blood sugar that carbs do. (My diet is under the care of several Drs.). I will ask my endocrinologist to clarify since he his a metabolism specialist and he wants me to eat low carb.0 -
and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.
As for your efficiency comment if you are saying your BMR is much LOWER than expected that means your body is actually EXTREMELY efficient, much more so than the average population. So I am not sure why you are saying operating at low efficiency.
what i mean is that at a 500-calorie deficit, the daily amount needed to lose one pound per week, i will only lose about .7lbs. it puts my BMR under 1,200 calories a day, which means to lose weight i have to drop down to less than 1,000 calories a day. it's unsustainable and borders on dangerous.
Then exercise more or lose weight at a slower rate, I guess I don't get it. Nothing says you have to lose weight based solely on your BMR nor do you have to lose weight at the rate of 1 pound per week. Nothing here makes CICO wrong or weight loss impossible so I guess what is the point here...that it is hard? Yeah of course it is hard.
Calculators tell me that I maintain at 3000 calories a day, but I don't...I maintain at more like 2500 calories a day. So what do I do about that? Well I adjust to what my body actually does and go off of that and I ignore the calculators. The calculators are based on population averages and assumptions. Just because the calculator says I could be eating 500 calories more when I found that I can't doesn't make me mope about it though nor does it make me think there is something wrong with me.
it's not a question of whining that it's hard. i know this is hard. i've dealt with this all my life. but why should i have to settle for being a turtle? my body has the potential to be so much more than it is right now. weight loss is the first step to that. and even after i'm finally able to lose the weight i've got, i will still always be in the "overweight" category as per the BMI (i hate those too, for other reasons) because i have a large frame and carry a lot of muscle mass. but i'm ok with that, because muscle is good. fat is not.
there's also the mental and emotional factors that come with having to battle for weight loss. i'm already looked at by medical professionals (not to mention society at large) as being lazy, less deserving of being taken seriously, less likely to be hired for a job, stupid, and in some cases just ugly, simply because of my weight. for as much as i hate those societal barriers and wish they weren't there, they are. i will never be tall. i will never have long legs. i will never be skinny enough to go to fashion week and walk away with designer samples. but i can rock the body that i DO have and make sure it's beautiful in its own right.
so when something is outside the norm and all other controllable factors have been addressed, then it's time to look at the uncontrollable factors. the medical community is becoming more and more aware that the inability to lose weight despite dieting and exercise is a symptom of a larger, systemic problem. simply accepting that i lose weight slowly means i'm also ignoring what could manifest into a much worse problem later on. if all of this means it's that much easier to diagnose an auto-immune disease that has the potential to royally screw up my life 20 years from now, then it's worth it.0 -
Insulin got its bad reputation because one function is a storage hormone---and that is the only thing about it that people who don't do further research latch onto.
Totally guilty as charged there. Today I learned something new and valuable.0 -
Why is it when people speak of carbs and insulin response they don't also add that protein generates an insulin response? Because you do realize it does right?
Insulin triggers muscle building. I don't know where it's got the reputation of being some bad thing that we should avoid. It's a critical metabolic step.
I DID NOT KNOW THAT.
THAT IS AWESOME. Thank you!
I think it also speaks to why it comes out to play when you eat protein.
(I found http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/the-muscle-building-messenger-complete-guide-to-insulin.html - interesting stuff...)
This website can be awesome. That's why I'm still here
0 -
and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.
As for your efficiency comment if you are saying your BMR is much LOWER than expected that means your body is actually EXTREMELY efficient, much more so than the average population. So I am not sure why you are saying operating at low efficiency.
what i mean is that at a 500-calorie deficit, the daily amount needed to lose one pound per week, i will only lose about .7lbs. it puts my BMR under 1,200 calories a day, which means to lose weight i have to drop down to less than 1,000 calories a day. it's unsustainable and borders on dangerous.
Then exercise more or lose weight at a slower rate, I guess I don't get it. Nothing says you have to lose weight based solely on your BMR nor do you have to lose weight at the rate of 1 pound per week. Nothing here makes CICO wrong or weight loss impossible so I guess what is the point here...that it is hard? Yeah of course it is hard.
Calculators tell me that I maintain at 3000 calories a day, but I don't...I maintain at more like 2500 calories a day. So what do I do about that? Well I adjust to what my body actually does and go off of that and I ignore the calculators. The calculators are based on population averages and assumptions. Just because the calculator says I could be eating 500 calories more when I found that I can't doesn't make me mope about it though nor does it make me think there is something wrong with me.
it's not a question of whining that it's hard. i know this is hard. i've dealt with this all my life. but why should i have to settle for being a turtle? my body has the potential to be so much more than it is right now. weight loss is the first step to that. and even after i'm finally able to lose the weight i've got, i will still always be in the "overweight" category as per the BMI (i hate those too, for other reasons) because i have a large frame and carry a lot of muscle mass. but i'm ok with that, because muscle is good. fat is not.
there's also the mental and emotional factors that come with having to battle for weight loss. i'm already looked at by medical professionals (not to mention society at large) as being lazy, less deserving of being taken seriously, less likely to be hired for a job, stupid, and in some cases just ugly, simply because of my weight. for as much as i hate those societal barriers and wish they weren't there, they are. i will never be tall. i will never have long legs. i will never be skinny enough to go to fashion week and walk away with designer samples. but i can rock the body that i DO have and make sure it's beautiful in its own right.
so when something is outside the norm and all other controllable factors have been addressed, then it's time to look at the uncontrollable factors. the medical community is becoming more and more aware that the inability to lose weight despite dieting and exercise is a symptom of a larger, systemic problem. simply accepting that i lose weight slowly means i'm also ignoring what could manifest into a much worse problem later on. if all of this means it's that much easier to diagnose an auto-immune disease that has the potential to royally screw up my life 20 years from now, then it's worth it.
Nobody's saying that you should settle for being a turtle. They are saying that you need to take personal responsibility.
One of the mechanisms of personal responsibility that's been mentioned several times is getting medical factors taken care of.
If you are doing that - GOOD FOR YOU!0 -
Why is it when people speak of carbs and insulin response they don't also add that protein generates an insulin response? Because you do realize it does right?
Insulin triggers muscle building. I don't know where it's got the reputation of being some bad thing that we should avoid. It's a critical metabolic step.
I DID NOT KNOW THAT.
THAT IS AWESOME. Thank you!
I think it also speaks to why it comes out to play when you eat protein.
(I found http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/the-muscle-building-messenger-complete-guide-to-insulin.html - interesting stuff...)
This website can be awesome. That's why I'm still here
That means T2 diabetes is a double-whammy. Jesus. Nasty stuff.0 -
Why is it when people speak of carbs and insulin response they don't also add that protein generates an insulin response? Because you do realize it does right?
Insulin triggers muscle building. I don't know where it's got the reputation of being some bad thing that we should avoid. It's a critical metabolic step.
I DID NOT KNOW THAT.
THAT IS AWESOME. Thank you!
I think it also speaks to why it comes out to play when you eat protein.
(I found http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/the-muscle-building-messenger-complete-guide-to-insulin.html - interesting stuff...)
This website can be awesome. That's why I'm still here
That means T2 diabetes is a double-whammy. Jesus. Nasty stuff.
Never thought of it that way. Wow.0 -
You are probably eating fewer calories because of cutting out gluten and refined sugars.0
-
That's cool. I'm fine with low-carb if that works for people. Some people do better with fewer carbs. Personally, though, it's easier for ME to eat what I want and eat within a calorie goal than it is to cut out my favorite foods. (It's basically how I've maintained over the years as I've aged.) It needs to be sustainable and life-long for me, and that means plenty of pasta to keep me sane. I've never had weight problems and I've always eaten plenty of carbs. Do what works for YOU! :flowerforyou:
I agree we are all different and one diet definitely does not work for all. However, I do believe (and know for a fact) that not all calories are created equal. But if counting calories works for you then who cares what some NYT article says!0 -
Why is it when people speak of carbs and insulin response they don't also add that protein generates an insulin response? Because you do realize it does right?
Insulin triggers muscle building. I don't know where it's got the reputation of being some bad thing that we should avoid. It's a critical metabolic step.
I DID NOT KNOW THAT.
THAT IS AWESOME. Thank you!
I think it also speaks to why it comes out to play when you eat protein.
(I found http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/the-muscle-building-messenger-complete-guide-to-insulin.html - interesting stuff...)
This website can be awesome. That's why I'm still here
That means T2 diabetes is a double-whammy. Jesus. Nasty stuff.
Never thought of it that way. Wow.
The rate of insulin response is just as important as what causes it. If you are spiking insulin quickly and MANY times a day, you build insulin resistance which triggers T2 diabetes. Whole grains increase blood sugar and therefore insulin as well, but not as quickly as refined carbs and other simple sugars.0 -
Nobody's saying that you should settle for being a turtle. They are saying that you need to take personal responsibility.
One of the mechanisms of personal responsibility that's been mentioned several times is getting medical factors taken care of.
If you are doing that - GOOD FOR YOU!
i've already met with a doctor and had one round of bloodwork done. i have another set of blood tests scheduled for november.0 -
That's cool. I'm fine with low-carb if that works for people. Some people do better with fewer carbs. Personally, though, it's easier for ME to eat what I want and eat within a calorie goal than it is to cut out my favorite foods. (It's basically how I've maintained over the years as I've aged.) It needs to be sustainable and life-long for me, and that means plenty of pasta to keep me sane. I've never had weight problems and I've always eaten plenty of carbs. Do what works for YOU! :flowerforyou:
I agree we are all different and one diet definitely does not work for all. However, I do believe (and know for a fact) that not all calories are created equal. But if counting calories works for you then who cares what some NYT article says!
how can it be a fact if it is not a fact?
A calorie is just a unit of energy. Therefore they are all the same in that regards.
All diets work, If it puts you in a caloric deficit.
I don't care what you eat, i don't care if you count calories, It means nothing to me.
I just find it ridiculous when people tote falsities as facts, and promote the diet they are on as the best diet, or only diet.0 -
If you burn less, your body is like a Prius-- efficient. It takes less fuel. I don't burn a lot of calories because I'm not male, young, tall or very heavy but it's ok because for me, 1400 calories feels like a mild deficit because it is. Someone who burns 3000 calories a day would have a harder time at 1400. It's apples and oranges.it's not a question of whining that it's hard. i know this is hard. i've dealt with this all my life. but why should i have to settle for being a turtle? my body has the potential to be so much more than it is right now.0 -
That's cool. I'm fine with low-carb if that works for people. Some people do better with fewer carbs. Personally, though, it's easier for ME to eat what I want and eat within a calorie goal than it is to cut out my favorite foods. (It's basically how I've maintained over the years as I've aged.) It needs to be sustainable and life-long for me, and that means plenty of pasta to keep me sane. I've never had weight problems and I've always eaten plenty of carbs. Do what works for YOU! :flowerforyou:
I agree we are all different and one diet definitely does not work for all. However, I do believe (and know for a fact) that not all calories are created equal. But if counting calories works for you then who cares what some NYT article says!
Oh good grief, did you read the whole thread? I guess not.
The general agreement is, you are wrong. All calories are equal since they are scientific unit of measurement. 1 calorie from protein = 1 calorie from bread, just like 1 degree celsius in Florida = 1 degree celsius in Alaska. Now what we also agreed on is it is healthier to have a good balance of macro nutrients to make up those calories. However, barring a MEDICAL CONDITION, eating at a caloric deficit, does not matter what the composition of macro nutrients are, will cause weight loss. Again, let me reiterate, this is science.
In my humble opinion, unless you have a medical condition, keep it simple and do not over think it.0 -
If you burn less, your body is like a Prius-- efficient. It takes less fuel. I don't burn a lot of calories because I'm not male, young, tall or very heavy but it's ok because for me, 1400 calories feels like a mild deficit because it is. Someone who burns 3000 calories a day would have a harder time at 1400. It's apples and oranges.it's not a question of whining that it's hard. i know this is hard. i've dealt with this all my life. but why should i have to settle for being a turtle? my body has the potential to be so much more than it is right now.
and i'd agree with you, IF i was 100 pounds lighter than i am right now. and since i'm not hosting a 100lb tumor, something is preventing my metabolism from being as high as it should be for someone of my weight.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I think Dr.Freedoff's post on this article is good. Here is a quote:
"Lastly, it's important to note that if the question is whether you personally should go low-carb, low-fat, or in-between this study certainly doesn't answer that. Ultimately the best diet for you is the one you actually enjoy enough to keep living with, as merely tolerable diets won't last, and any and all can work so long as you enjoy them enough to sustain them as seen in this meta-analysis published yesterday in JAMA.
Putting this all another way it's important not to forget that one person's best diet is undoubtedly another person's worst, and that folks who are stuck dogmatically promoting only one "best" diet can be safely ignored. "
For the full article go to the today's post in http://www.weightymatters.ca/
For the http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=19005100 -
But short of moving more or taking supplemental thyroid hormones, all you can do is eat at the deficit level that causes you to lose weight, like everyone else.
If you burn less, your body is like a Prius-- efficient. It takes less fuel. I don't burn a lot of calories because I'm not male, young, tall or very heavy but it's ok because for me, 1400 calories feels like a mild deficit because it is. Someone who burns 3000 calories a day would have a harder time at 1400. It's apples and oranges.it's not a question of whining that it's hard. i know this is hard. i've dealt with this all my life. but why should i have to settle for being a turtle? my body has the potential to be so much more than it is right now.
and i'd agree with you, IF i was 100 pounds lighter than i am right now. and since i'm not hosting a 100lb tumor, something is preventing my metabolism from being as high as it should be for someone of my weight.
You don't know if it's because you're underestimating your intake or the estimators overestimate your burns but it doesn't matter because in either case, the solution is the same.0 -
Whey does stimulate insulin secretion. There have been numerous studies performed to evaluate When's effects on BGL.
Why is it when people speak of carbs and insulin response they don't also add that protein generates an insulin response? Because you do realize it does right?There are benefits...for some people...but one of those benefits is not magical calories. And that's basically the TL;DR of the thread.
That's a very good point - and one of the questions I've always had with the plan.
But protein and fat trigger feelings of satiety, carbs trigger insulin which triggers more hunger.
The end result is you don't eat as many calories due to not wanting to - as opposed to having to force yourself to stop. IME it's a self-correcting system.
Whey protein? Apparently different proteins react differently too. I read that it doesn't exactly do the same thing to your blood sugar that carbs do. (My diet is under the care of several Drs.). I will ask my endocrinologist to clarify since he his a metabolism specialist and he wants me to eat low carb.
Right, I was agreeing. Whey is a fast burning protein. What I was trying to say was that different proteins act differently. For instance casein burns slower so you wouldn't get the same spike you get from whey. And proteins don't act the same way that simple carbs do. That's all. I just explained myself poorly. I'm not even sure I'm explaining myself well now, and I could be wrong, that was how I understood it. I read about this when I was looking into protein supplements a while ago so I may be confused.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
But short of moving more or taking supplemental thyroid hormones, all you can do is eat at the deficit level that causes you to lose weight, like everyone else.
If you burn less, your body is like a Prius-- efficient. It takes less fuel. I don't burn a lot of calories because I'm not male, young, tall or very heavy but it's ok because for me, 1400 calories feels like a mild deficit because it is. Someone who burns 3000 calories a day would have a harder time at 1400. It's apples and oranges.it's not a question of whining that it's hard. i know this is hard. i've dealt with this all my life. but why should i have to settle for being a turtle? my body has the potential to be so much more than it is right now.
and i'd agree with you, IF i was 100 pounds lighter than i am right now. and since i'm not hosting a 100lb tumor, something is preventing my metabolism from being as high as it should be for someone of my weight.
You don't know if it's because you're underestimating your intake or the estimators overestimate your burns but it doesn't matter because in either case, the solution is the same.
and again, i will state... dropping my calories low enough to effect the same rate of loss puts me down into the range of 800 a day, considering that i would have to have a deficit 25% higher than everyone else's. what it's telling me is that a 3500 calorie deficit doesn't burn a pound. it burns .75 pounds. which means i have to expend 4,375 calories' worth of work to do what someone else can do burning only 3,500.
what it means is that my intake drops to below sustainable levels to be able to function properly and get proper nutrition.0 -
Or that you underestimate your intake, like we all do to some extent.
If your body needs X calories to maintain at 100 lbs. overweight, I don't think it needs a number >X for proper nutrition and function, or even greater than 80% of X.0 -
But short of moving more or taking supplemental thyroid hormones, all you can do is eat at the deficit level that causes you to lose weight, like everyone else.
If you burn less, your body is like a Prius-- efficient. It takes less fuel. I don't burn a lot of calories because I'm not male, young, tall or very heavy but it's ok because for me, 1400 calories feels like a mild deficit because it is. Someone who burns 3000 calories a day would have a harder time at 1400. It's apples and oranges.it's not a question of whining that it's hard. i know this is hard. i've dealt with this all my life. but why should i have to settle for being a turtle? my body has the potential to be so much more than it is right now.
and i'd agree with you, IF i was 100 pounds lighter than i am right now. and since i'm not hosting a 100lb tumor, something is preventing my metabolism from being as high as it should be for someone of my weight.
You don't know if it's because you're underestimating your intake or the estimators overestimate your burns but it doesn't matter because in either case, the solution is the same.
and again, i will state... dropping my calories low enough to effect the same rate of loss puts me down into the range of 800 a day, considering that i would have to have a deficit 25% higher than everyone else's. what it's telling me is that a 3500 calorie deficit doesn't burn a pound. it burns .75 pounds. which means i have to expend 4,375 calories' worth of work to do what someone else can do burning only 3,500.
what it means is that my intake drops to below sustainable levels to be able to function properly and get proper nutrition.
To lose a pound.
However, you are underestimating your activity level and not considering the fact that losing something less than a pound is an option.
I can never hack a 3500 weekly deficit. I always lose a half pound a week or less. I just can't handle hunger. I have to make a choice based on my body and what *I* can manage.
While you should definitely seek medical advice, at the end of the day it'll be *your* choices based on your needs that dictate your body composition.0 -
Or that you underestimate your intake, like we all do to some extent.
If your body needs X calories to maintain at 100 lbs. overweight, I don't think it needs a number >X for proper nutrition and function, or even greater than 80% of X.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand now we're back to the "you're doing it wrong" argument. if you think i'm underestimating my intake, you can go argue with my kitchen scale. everything i eat is weighed, measured, and/or portioned. i believe i covered that about 40 posts ago.0 -
Or that you underestimate your intake, like we all do to some extent.
If your body needs X calories to maintain at 100 lbs. overweight, I don't think it needs a number >X for proper nutrition and function, or even greater than 80% of X.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand now we're back to the "you're doing it wrong" argument. if you think i'm underestimating my intake, you can go argue with my kitchen scale. everything i eat is weighed, measured, and/or portioned. i believe i covered that about 40 posts ago.
Are you trying to lose weight? Are you succeeding?
If so, who cares what anyone else thinks. You're obviously doing something right.
Otherwise...0 -
right now, that's one of the things i'm trying to figure out... where do my REAL TDEE, BMR, and maintenance rates fall? all the different methods of calculations give me wildly varying numbers so zeroing in on the truth becomes more confusing. if i was within 90% of the calculated BMR/TDEE, i wouldn't care.
If you have real data, ignore the calculations. Do your own, based on your data, and use that.
I think I misunderstood your original post, which was during a period of quick back and forth, because you seemed to be saying that your numbers were inconsistent with CICO. Thus, I read you too quickly and assumed you were saying some version of the "I couldn't lose on 800 until I did [insert here low carb/raw/clean, etc.] and then I lost on 2500." If your point was that the TDEE calculators don't seem to work for you, that's not a CICO issue at all. People take those calculators as if they were infallible sometimes, when they are just averages and estimates, as others have said. If you start with them, you adjust based on actual results. If you have actual results, you use those, as they are better.
If you think your TDEE is way off what it should be, such that there might be a metabolic issue, use the data you've gathered and show it to a doctor.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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