Stop the Low-Cal Insanity!
Replies
-
I don't believe that when it comes to BMR, TDEE and the amount of calories one needs to eat to maintain or lose weight is any different for those with PCOS, thyroid issues or even diabetes. I am diabetic2, have always had symptoms of PCOS and thyroid issues. It has taken me years and years to figure out why I could not lose weight and gained easily. I am convinced it was not the number of calories (as long as I was eating a deficit from TDEE) but rather the kinds of food I ate. I know now that the percentage of carbs in my diet must be low. I also now know that dairy or any food shot full of hormones must be eliminated from my diet.( I am careful about where I buy my meat. I shop where I know the meat is hormone and steroid free.) Soy products are off my menu as soy messes with hormones and thyroid.Excellent post OP!!
What never ceases to amaze me is how a common sense post like this based on good information will bring so many people doing VLCDs out of the woodwork to rationalize and justify thier choices. To some degree, the less you eat and the longer you eat that way, you are condemning yourself to eat that way likely for the rest of your life. The metabolic adaptations and downregulation can be fairly permanent short of gaining all the weight back and starting all over again the right way.
And we are not "all different" so much. With the exception of those with some kind of heath condition like PCOS or a thryroid issue, we are much more alike than different with some minor variation from individual to individual.
My target daily calorie intake is almost 1600. Some days I am over. Some days I am under. It can be a challenge sometimes to eat enough calories when you eat low carb and no dairy. I'm learning.
I could have written the above post. I do eat Dairy though. Congratulations on your weight loss to the poster Laura who posted the above!0 -
The OP was not talking about people eating 1,200.0
-
How does exercise affect this? And what is the "magic" number of body fat/calorie intake does this happen at? Why would your body eat away at muscle and leave the natural back up source of energy? And please, please post a pic of someone that is skinny fat. I did a google image search and found either fat, or skinny people.
Only if you have significant fat stores. Your body can only burn so much at a time and as the amount of body fat decreases, so does the amount of fat that your body can burn at once, hence the need to "top up" with other sources of energy. If you don't "top-up" enough, your body starts eating away at muscle which is REALLY bad, because that's what causes plateaus. More muscle means higher metabolism, less muscle means slower metabolism.If you do eat below your BMR, can you body used its stored fuel reserves aka fat to make up the difference?
So you can imagine that once your body starts eating away at muscle (which will also give you a nice result on the scale, but is probably the cause for an earlier poster's "spare tire"), your metabolism decreases and you have to constantly reduce calories to keep losing. You can only do this for so long. You'll have to keep going around in a circle to lose weight, because the more muscle you lose, the slower your metabolism becomes and the less you have to eat to keep it up, therefore causing your body to burn even more muscle for energy. Before you know it, you'll be a "skinny fat" person - a person with a low weight, but high body fat %.
If you can prevent your body from burning muscle for fuel (by not dramatically reducing calories), you don't affect your metabolism that much. The weight loss will be slow, because you are "topping up", but it can be maintained for much longer because you don't have to continuously and more "drastically" reduce calories to keep up with your metabolism.0 -
If we are all different, why do most people like the number 1200? Doesn't that make everyone eating at 1200 calories the same and not unique? ponder that one :noway: have a wonderful day :flowerforyou:0
-
If we are all different, why do most people like the number 1200? Doesn't that make everyone eating at 1200 calories the same and not unique? ponder that one :noway: have a wonderful day :flowerforyou:
Because that is the lowest number MFP will set your goal at. Some people lose 1 pound at 1200, some people lose 2 pounds at 1200. Some people are even eating at 800-1000 and losing weight. They aren't all the same, nor are they losing at the same rate. Many are just afraid to eat less than 1200 because they are scared of Starvation Mode, because every time they fall below that number, they get the dreaded warning from MFP.0 -
Perhaps half of the confusion is with the MFP calorie estimator. It's ridiculously low!
Are you being serious? It's ridiculously HIGH.0 -
1200 is not a number pulled out of the air by MFP. It is the recommended minimum calories set by the American College of Sports Medicine, and other health professionals.0
-
and I find it annoying how ppl eating 2000 and losing come and try to ¨teach¨ people like if they were a fitness guru.
Yes I eat 1200 cal a day, yes im a shorty, and no i wont eat more than that cause I stop losing thank u.
If you eat 2000 and you lose, GREAT for you :drinker: , if I eat 1200 and lose, GREAT for me :drinker: . What works for you doesnt work for me and viceversa. To each their own, do your thing and stop worrying/complaining about what other people do.
Thank you! Geez! My body has to realize that it needs to reach into it's fat storage a burn some FAT ... it won't do that if I feed it all the calories it needs. 1200 or 2000 or whatever number someone comes up with this week as the magic number is not magic for everyone.
EXACTLY! I'm petite, if I average over 1400 calories a day over a week I GAIN. Average of 1,200 calories in a week works for me! I lose a safe 1 lb a week when I do this. I don't understand the "push" for everyone to eat more. I say you play around with numbers for a month. Adjust your calorie intake according to the level you see you lose weight. I also have a thyroid issue so I'm just HAPPY that even at 1200 I can still lose weight. TO each their own man!
This no makey sense, how can you lose 1 lb a week on 1200 and gain on 1400. A caloric difference of 500 from TDEE is required for 1 lb a week weight loss. That would mean your TDEE is 1700 and you would still lose on 1400, just slower.
*pounds head against wall*0 -
I second this entirely.and I find it annoying how ppl eating 2000 and losing come and try to ¨teach¨ people like if they were a fitness guru.
Yes I eat 1200 cal a day, yes im a shorty, and no i wont eat more than that cause I stop losing thank u.
If you eat 2000 and you lose, GREAT for you :drinker: , if I eat 1200 and lose, GREAT for me :drinker: . What works for you doesnt work for me and viceversa. To each their own, do your thing and stop worrying/complaining about what other people do.
I'm sedentary. My TDEE is 1700. My net goal is 1200 because I would like to lose a pound a week (notice I said NET. On days I work out, I'm allowed to eat up to 1500 - IF I'm hungry for it). I don't see why I would force myself to eat MORE than I feel like eating, so that I could lose LESS than I want to lose. It makes no sense.
I'm not overweight, besides my 30 minute workouts 5x a week and walking to classes 3 times a week, I basically sit around all day, AND on top of that I'm short, so of course I can do this without detrimental effects to my body. Stop assuming everyone is the same because they're not.0 -
But according to your numbers above, the difference is over 300 between 10% and 30%. Factor in 1.5 for TDEE and it equals a 450 calorie per day difference. Thus 1200 cals vs 1650 cals for the same results. That is an almost 40% difference in calorie levels. This is my point as to why what works for one person may not work for the next person. Same age, height, weight.
no, it's basic statistics. 1 standard deviation. in this case, with only 3 data points. BMR calculations applied to the population would generate a graph heavily centered around 25% BF (for men) and 40% BF (for women). i don't have the data to weight the numbers accurately, but those are the national averages. so yes, i could have done the numbers above with 3 data points at 35%, 40%, and 45% instead, but i just chose some numbers using your example. anyway, i'm not sure exactly what you're trying to argue. you state that the BMR estimators/calculators are not reliable because everybody is different and then you find extreme corner case scenarios as your proof. are you arguing that nobody should pay attention to BMR or TDEE? or are you arguing that everybody should go to a doctor and get their body fat measured so that a more accurate BMR can be calculated for each person?
here's what i'm saying, you tell me what you don't agree with.
1) everyone should use their BMR/TDEE numbers to figure out a starting point for setting their daily calorie requirements
2) just pulling numbers out of thin air is not a good plan
3) the BMR calculators online are close enough for 90% of everybody who uses them
4) we are not all unique little snowflakes with our own internal laws of physics. people who say "what works for one may not work for another" are promoting a fallacy. we are similar enough that the basic physiology is well understand and statistically works for almost all of us, within a certain error margin.
I'm not trying to argue with you, I was just pointing out that the numbers you showed between 2 women with a 20% difference in BF%, resulted in a 450 calorie per day difference in their TDEE. So your statement that there wasn't a big difference between them, was a bit off.
The crucial point is that for people to accurately figure out the calorie level they need to be at to lose weight, they need to have an accurate BMR number to start with. If they are above or below the BF% that the standard BMR calculators use for their calculations, then they may need to use a calculator like the Katch-Mcardle, that takes their BF% into account. If they figure their TDEE from the accurate BMR, then they will have a better calorie number to work with.
Perhaps MFP could add the Katch-Mcardle calculator to the site for people to compare? And maybe the BF% calculator that uses your neck, waist, and hip measurement to help figure your BF%?0 -
I second this entirely.and I find it annoying how ppl eating 2000 and losing come and try to ¨teach¨ people like if they were a fitness guru.
Yes I eat 1200 cal a day, yes im a shorty, and no i wont eat more than that cause I stop losing thank u.
If you eat 2000 and you lose, GREAT for you :drinker: , if I eat 1200 and lose, GREAT for me :drinker: . What works for you doesnt work for me and viceversa. To each their own, do your thing and stop worrying/complaining about what other people do.
I'm sedentary. My TDEE is 1700. My net goal is 1200 because I would like to lose a pound a week (notice I said NET. On days I work out, I'm allowed to eat up to 1500 - IF I'm hungry for it). I don't see why I would force myself to eat MORE than I feel like eating, so that I could lose LESS than I want to lose. It makes no sense.
I'm not overweight, besides my 30 minute workouts 5x a week and walking to classes 3 times a week, I basically sit around all day, AND on top of that I'm short, so of course I can do this without detrimental effects to my body. Stop assuming everyone is the same because they're not.
You're sedentary, but workout 5X a week and walk to class 3X a week? .................. that's not sedentary.
Less calories =/= more weight loss. Slight deficits equal weight loss. It's science.
Actually, everyone IS pretty much the same. It's basic science, barring a medical condition. In fact, I used to think everyone was not the same and that I was the exception who would gain back a million if I ate more than 1200, just like you. But every time I 1) could not maintain that level of calories, so would binge, 2) my body had slowed to a plateau and wouldn't let go of any more, and 3) even if I did get to my goal weight, I gained it back..... THREE TIMES. Been there, done that. It doesn't work. And I'm not the only one with a story like that.
I guess come back in 3 months and compare where you are with someone who's eating more than you and trying to lose weight. Then in a year. Then evaluate whether or not it's working for you....0 -
I have a question, there are people who might eat a piece of chocolate and a muffin and nothing else and be on a low cal diet and the there are people who eat large qvantities of lean protein, low fat dairy, whole grains, fruit and vegies and still be on a low cal diet even though they eat large amounts of healthy food. Is there a difference?0
-
Did you read the whole article? There is nothing wrong with a 1200 calorie diet if that is a reasonable deficit from your DEE.
Quote from the article:
*Remember that 1,200 calories would be a large deficit for an obese person. Lighter folks have much lower daily energy costs, all things constant, and for some, 1,200 calories would not be unreasonable.
It's a great article.0 -
I have a question, there are people who might eat a piece of chocolate and a muffin and nothing else and be on a low cal diet and the there are people who eat large qvantities of lean protein, low fat dairy, whole grains, fruit and vegies and still be on a low cal diet even though they eat large amounts of healthy food. Is there a difference?
Blueberry muffin from Dunkin Donuts: 460 calories
Person eating large amounts of healthy food: 1,200 or more calories of nutritious things with vitamins and minerals and protein.
What do you think?0 -
and I find it annoying how ppl eating 2000 and losing come and try to ¨teach¨ people like if they were a fitness guru.
Yes I eat 1200 cal a day, yes im a shorty, and no i wont eat more than that cause I stop losing thank u.
If you eat 2000 and you lose, GREAT for you :drinker: , if I eat 1200 and lose, GREAT for me :drinker: . What works for you doesnt work for me and viceversa. To each their own, do your thing and stop worrying/complaining about what other people do.
This ^0 -
I have a question, there are people who might eat a piece of chocolate and a muffin and nothing else and be on a low cal diet and the there are people who eat large qvantities of lean protein, low fat dairy, whole grains, fruit and vegies and still be on a low cal diet even though they eat large amounts of healthy food. Is there a difference?
Blueberry muffin from Dunkin Donuts: 460 calories
Person eating large amounts of healthy food: 1,200 or more calories of nutritious things with vitamins and minerals and protein.
What do you think?0 -
Lately, there’ve been a lot of posts here from folks on very low calorie diets. Usually, the MFP veterans jump in and quickly point out the danger of these diets. Often, the original poster will counter with, “But I’m not hungry, and I have loads of energy.” The vets try to explain how such low calorie diets can’t provide your body with the nutrition it needs, regardless of satiety, but this often falls on deaf ears. I’m going to try to provide a realistic explanation of why these diets are dangerous.
Let’s assume our happy dieter is a 200-pound woman. She wants to lose weight down to 140 pounds. She’s reasonably active, and participates in a weight lifting and cardio program. She hopes to lose body fat and “tone” her muscles. (Don’t get me started on that, but whatever.) For this example, we’re going to assume she’s 30% bodyfat. That means she has 60 pounds of fat, and 140 pounds of lean body mass (everything that’s not fat – organs, bones, muscles, connective tissue, etc.) How many calories does she need just to maintain her muscle mass and get the right amount of carbs, protein, and fat to fuel her body? Let’s find out.
We’ll assume she needs 1 gram of protein for every pound of lean body mass. Some experts recommend more, some less, but it’s a good middle number to work with. She has 140 pounds of LBM, so she needs 140 grams of protein. Eat too much less than this, and you risk losing muscle. Not good. Since 1 gram of protein is 4 calories, she needs 560 calories of protein every day.
We’ll assume she needs 0.4 grams of fat per pound of target body weight. Again, that number is in some dispute, and many experts say you can get by just fine on less, but I’m going to use it for our example. With a target body weight of 140 pounds, she needs 80 grams of fat per day. Since each gram of fat is 9 calories, that’s 720 calories of fat. Adding this to her required 560 cals of protein yields 1280 calories. That’s right – she’s already over 1200 calories and she hasn’t eaten a single carb yet.
Now I don’t care how low-carb your diet is. Everybody needs some carbs just to function. Even if we assume a pretty low carb level – let’s say 50 grams a day – at 4 calories a gram, that’s a minimum of 200 extra calories needed for carbs – your fruits, veggies, all that good stuff. So now we’re up to 1480 calories minimum for this lady. Take about 20% off of that, and that gives you a daily goal around 1200. And that’s a minimum number, folks, not a maximum.
I’ve simplified this quite a bit, and done an end run around computing TDEE and going from there, but you get the point. Anyone eating 700 or 900 calories can’t possibly be getting enough fuel unless you’re 3 feet tall and weigh 75 pounds or something. If you want a more detailed explanation of how all this works, I highly recommend the following article from our own Steve Troutman:
http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/
I hope this clears up the whole low-cal insanity a bit. Best of luck, and stay strong!
Good post and I second the recommendation to read Steve's material. Good info on that site.
Here here!0 -
In order for it to be a reasonable deficit from TDEE youd have to be very small, old, little activity or post GBS.Did you read the whole article? There is nothing wrong with a 1200 calorie diet if that is a reasonable deficit from your DEE.
Quote from the article:
*Remember that 1,200 calories would be a large deficit for an obese person. Lighter folks have much lower daily energy costs, all things constant, and for some, 1,200 calories would not be unreasonable.
It's a great article.
I've done 100s of numbers and only came across 1 person who fits this.
A sedentary old woman whos about 4'11".......0 -
Here is the danger of all the Eat More people telling everyone what they should do.
There are numerous people struggling to lose weight on here. They are told that their BMR is like 1800 and their TDEE is like 2500 so they should be eating like 2200 per day.
Other people tell them that they MUST eat back their exercise calories.
So they ride their stationary bike for an hour and MFP tells them they burned 700 calories. Yippee! They now have 2900 calories they can eat per day! They think that sounds like way too many calories, so they only eat 2400 calories per day. That should give them an extra 1 pound loss per week, right??
After the first week or 2 of extra water weight they lose, they stop losing and even start gaining. People tell them they need to add weight training, so they go to the gym a couple days a week and lift a few weights. Ok, now when they gain weight, people can tell them that it isn't fat they are gaining, it is muscle. That is a good thing.
Other people tell them that since they are 'exercising' so much, that they now need to eat even more. So they do. And they continue to gain 'muscle'. Meanwhile, 3 months have passed and they have not lost 1 pound of the 80 pounds of fat they needed to lose.
They now get discouraged and decide that 'diets don't work for them' and quit altogether.
But hey, they have at least taught themselves how to eat 3000 calories per day so they won't go into 'starvation mode' and lose all their LBM!
Good job Gurus, good job!
So perhaps that is a little bit of an exaggeration, but hopefully you see my point. Seriously, right now I am watching several women who are getting so discouraged because they are eating around 1700-1800 cals per day and not losing any weight at all. The BMR calculators give them way too high of a number to start with and are convinced they have a TDEE of 2500. Then the MFP exercise calculators give them a number two times the number of calories they are actually burning, so they can't understand why they aren't losing weight. Now they have people 20 years younger than they are, who spend hours a day in the gym, telling them that they just need to eat more, don't worry you are gaining muscle not fat, just wait, give it more time and you will start losing, etc.
I feel horrible for these people because I understand their frustration.
If someone has 50 pounds of fat to lose, losing at 1-2 pounds per week is completely safe and healthy. Whatever calorie level puts you losing at that amount, and you are getting the right amount of nutrients where you are not starving all day and have zero energy, then eat at that amount. There is no magic number. Whatever number is working for you, is the right number. If after the first 2 weeks you stop losing and don't lose for a month, then you are eating too many calories.
PLEASE note that I am not directing this towards someone already at a healthy weight. This is for those who have a lot to lose. I also do not condone calories lower than 800 per day for anyone, long term. The CDC states that 800 is the minimum calories for most women and 900 for most men, to get in the proper nutrients and lose weight safely. AGAIN, I am not saying that everyone should eat at that low of a level, but if an overweight person is eating that low for the purpose of treating obesity, then leave them alone and let them and their doctor worry about it.
For the record, I did not use BMR or TDEE when I was losing. I have a BodyMedia Fit and used the numbers there based on what I was actually burning, not what some calculator said, but I have since used the calculators, and they are pretty close on BMR, way under on TDEE.0 -
I have a question, there are people who might eat a piece of chocolate and a muffin and nothing else and be on a low cal diet and the there are people who eat large qvantities of lean protein, low fat dairy, whole grains, fruit and vegies and still be on a low cal diet even though they eat large amounts of healthy food. Is there a difference?
Blueberry muffin from Dunkin Donuts: 460 calories
Person eating large amounts of healthy food: 1,200 or more calories of nutritious things with vitamins and minerals and protein.
What do you think?
There is a universe of options between those 2 extremes. It'a not either/or. In fact my personal choice would be neither. It would be an accurate TDEE -15% and at least 80%+ of my food from nutrient dense sources. And for those that want to talk about the variance in individual, start will an online calculator for a month and make the nessesary adjustments up or down based on actual performance. If you've already down regulated your metabolism with an extended period of VLCD, too late to apply this logic as you've changed the baseline.0 -
Why does it have to be a science? Lets get back to why we store fat in the first place, to use that fat source in time of need Our body is built to store fat and then use it when theres not much to eat. Simple, as long as u eat nutritious food.0
-
I've found that these forums have a very negative attitude to low calorie diets of any sort.
If you don't mind me asking, what's wrong with letting us choose to do this? It doesn't effect anyone else.0 -
I've found that these forums have a very negative attitude to low calorie diets of any sort.
If you don't mind me asking, what's wrong with letting us choose to do this? It doesn't effect anyone else.
No one controls your choices. You are free to choose whatever you want. All choices have consequences. Some good. Some not. The wise person, seeks the counsel of many and chooses wisely based on good counsel.0 -
Bump0
-
I've found that these forums have a very negative attitude to low calorie diets of any sort.
If you don't mind me asking, what's wrong with letting us choose to do this? It doesn't effect anyone else.
800 Cals a day is an eating disorder unless you are supervised by a doctor and/or have had some sort of surgery for that. People aren't meaning to attack - just help. Google Auschwitz + calories. Non-labor prisoners ate 1200-1300 calories. Light work was about 1700 calories, and strenuous work was 2100. These numbers are well documented along with testimony from survivors. I really don't think people are trying to be malicious here, just concerned. But hey - it's your body. Some of us that eat more have possibly walked a mile in your shoes. Just sayin'0 -
I've found that these forums have a very negative attitude to low calorie diets of any sort.
If you don't mind me asking, what's wrong with letting us choose to do this? It doesn't effect anyone else.
No one controls your choices. You are free to choose whatever you want. All choices have consequences. Some good. Some not. The wise person, seeks the counsel of many and chooses wisely based on good counsel.
Yes, I agree with this, thank you for your insight
I think that one problem of VLCDs is the fact that a lot of people jump in to them without evaluating risks and benefits properly.
In my opinion, any person beginning a diet like this should be properly informed of ALL the risks. That includes psychological AND physical. Of course, no one under 18 should attempt, because if you haven't stopped growing, you could develop improperly!
I have seen quite a few people (not the majority) instantly assume that anyone who partakes in this sort of diet is uninformed, or doesn't understand, or is even stupid. The truth is, most people ARE informed, and just choose this pathway as a lifestyle.
As to calling us stupid, well... that doesn't help with anyone's self esteem. Certainly not mine.0 -
Thanks for the very interesting and helpful OP. I do have a general problem getting enough protein, if anyone has any helpful suggestions that would be great. Fiber seems to be my specialty, though!
While I don't question for a minute that too few calories is dangerous, I do have a concern about a "one size fits all" approach to losing weight here. How much (or in this case, how little) a person needs to eat is also affected by age, metabolism and medication. What works for one won't necessarily work for all.0 -
I've found that these forums have a very negative attitude to low calorie diets of any sort.
If you don't mind me asking, what's wrong with letting us choose to do this? It doesn't effect anyone else.
800 Cals a day is an eating disorder unless you are supervised by a doctor and/or have had some sort of surgery for that. People aren't meaning to attack - just help. Google Auschwitz + calories. Non-labor prisoners ate 1200-1300 calories. Light work was about 1700 calories, and strenuous work was 2100. These numbers are well documented along with testimony from survivors. I really don't think people are trying to be malicious here, just concerned. But hey - it's your body. Some of us that eat more have possibly walked a mile in your shoes. Just sayin'
Sorry, I wasn't trying to rant at everyone who condones eating larger amounts
I was aiming this more at people who are very harsh critics. It is a minority among the general population of the forum 0 -
Thanks for posting this. it makes so much sense this way. I"m going to up my calories. I think I need to anyway.0
-
@moosycakes^I think the idea is to help us. I think people here are not trying to be mean they post out of genuine concern. I'm also on the lower calorie end so every time a thread like this comes up I read it. To tell you the truth, I am torn about these kinds of posts. On the one hand I've lost weight using 1200 as my goal and I cannot afford to gain it back. But on the other hand 1200 is probably a little low for maintaining long term. At the moment I've decided to up my calories a bit to see if I can still keep losing. I really don't care if I lose 2lbs or .5 a week as long as I lose.
People like me (who are small 5'4" and don't have a lot to lose 121 my goal: 115) are in a tricky place. Even if I am set at 1200, MFP has been known to underestimate calories eaten and overestimate calories burned. If you are bigger 100 extra calories isn't a huge deal but it is to us wee people . So my thinking is that by staying around 1200 (MFP) I am actually probably more like 1300-1400 anyways (since I don't use a HRM right now). One thing I have learned from being here is that most of the information (and genuine support) is for bigger people who have a lot to lose. I think it is harder for some people to understand our goals/rationales. While these goals are drastic to us they may seem very subtle to others (and in truth we really are looking to fine tune our bodies not shave off large amounts). If you are small female with 5-10 lbs to lose I think making small changes up from 1200 is likely best. Eventually I'll get another HRM or fitbit and hopefully that will tell me what I actually burn more accurately. But for now I have moved my goal to .5lbs a week which brings my calories to a little over 1300 and I am trying to stay around there (not eating all my exercise calories back either). I am afraid of my TDEE which is like 1700 calories--I really think that is just too much on a daily basis. But in support of the spirit of this post, I will say if I go under 1200 I do feel horrible so I wholeheartedly agree there. 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
- 424 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