Mice become Obese WITHOUT Consuming Any More Calories
Replies
-
The only anger is in your imagination. I haven't typed an angry word here.So you can save your angry judgments because they fall very short of the mark.
What value judgments have I made?And I would say the same to you, "The best way to keep yourself from understanding anything is to make value judgments about it."
I didn't say anything about easy. I said that in the vast majority of cases it's preventable. You are the one saying it's not, and then you follow up by explaining again that you figured out how to eat right for your body and stopped being obese. That's my whole point: most people can do the same if they find what works for their body.If you have never been truly obese, you don't understand anything about it. I have and I understand what it takes to trim the weight off. I have had a lot of success after many years of struggles and for that I am grateful. But I assure you, it is not easy.0 -
In your own words, this is exactly what I've been saying all along that you are getting so angry about and calling "angry judgments"We can certainly influence what our body looks like and with the proper diet and exercise, no one needs to stay morbidly obese
The End.0 -
I think the poster you've quoted understands just fine.
While accounting for some differences in metabolism between individuals, I don't really believe there is anything such as a "natually thin" person. Usually, a when all the data is brought to light, it comes back to the energy balance equation for most people. I have yet to see any reliable documentation of a "naturally thin" person who is eating in a calorie surplus. If anyone has studies on this please post them.
Some people due have issues with being more suseptible to gain due to either disease like diabetes or thyroid issues or poor health/ fitness/ diet choices that cause insulin sensitivity issues but I've never seen reliable evidence of people that don't fall into any of those categories that gain weight on a maintenance diet or calories deficit. All evidence I've seen is n=1 ancedotal stuff. Again, if there are reliable studies and data that anyone is aware of regarding humans, please post them.
On my phone, so no studies but I am a naturally thin person. No health issues, never weighed more than 107 in my life, and I eat. Quite a bit. Unfortunately I was removed from the studies done at USF, over and over, I just didn't gain or lost it immediately. I'm not even keen on the set point theory but I know I'm not very active so NEAT has nothing to do with my weight. Just my genetic inheritance I suppose.
Thank you for proving my point. :flowerforyou: It was observed centuries ago that there were "ectomorphs, mesomorphs and endomorphs". We can certainly influence what our body looks like and with the proper diet and exercise, no one needs to stay morbidly obese but will I ever have a body like yours? Not a chance. But I'm okay with that---living life successfully means being comfortable in your own skin. I'm finally comfortable in mine.
Besides being one data point, how does this prove your point? It's one person. She may be an outlier. There may be a lot more people like her. She is a friend of mine and very intelligent and well versed. I'm guessing when she get's to a computer, she's dig in and see what she can come up with for studies which may or may not prove your point. But her n=1 experience doesn't prove that there are naturally skinny people and more than your proves there are naturally fat people.
You don't seem to be clear on the whole "evidence" thing.
I am married to a scientist---I can assure you that I well know what evidence is. I understand that she and the paramedic are anecdotal but it defies reason to insist that everyone is the same. Everyone of us is unique but there are some universal maxims that hold---one is that if you move more and eat less you will lose fat. But that assumes that everyone knows what is enough activity and what it means to eat less. I used to eat 1200 calories and yet was not losing. Now, I eat 1600 calories and am losing body fat. Remember a few years ago when the medical researchers told us that you couldn't possibly exercise enough to lose more than a few hundred calories at a time (and that that was not going to do much)? There is still a great amount of conflicting information and we are just beginning to understand the intricacies of the human hormonal system and how it affects fat gain or loss. There are researchers who are on the leading edge of a hunt for a magic bullet to end the obesity epidemic (some have speculated that a medication that would suppress fructokinase, making it impossible for people to digest fructose and thus not get fat from the sugar in their diet). But, until that time, the "battle of the bulge" continues.0 -
In your own words, this is exactly what I've been saying all along that you are getting so angry about and calling "angry judgments"We can certainly influence what our body looks like and with the proper diet and exercise, no one needs to stay morbidly obese
The End.
Bravo!0 -
Damn! Is the stupid mice still alive???:sad:0
-
I think the poster you've quoted understands just fine.
While accounting for some differences in metabolism between individuals, I don't really believe there is anything such as a "natually thin" person. Usually, a when all the data is brought to light, it comes back to the energy balance equation for most people. I have yet to see any reliable documentation of a "naturally thin" person who is eating in a calorie surplus. If anyone has studies on this please post them.
Some people due have issues with being more suseptible to gain due to either disease like diabetes or thyroid issues or poor health/ fitness/ diet choices that cause insulin sensitivity issues but I've never seen reliable evidence of people that don't fall into any of those categories that gain weight on a maintenance diet or calories deficit. All evidence I've seen is n=1 ancedotal stuff. Again, if there are reliable studies and data that anyone is aware of regarding humans, please post them.
On my phone, so no studies but I am a naturally thin person. No health issues, never weighed more than 107 in my life, and I eat. Quite a bit. Unfortunately I was removed from the studies done at USF, over and over, I just didn't gain or lost it immediately. I'm not even keen on the set point theory but I know I'm not very active so NEAT has nothing to do with my weight. Just my genetic inheritance I suppose.
Thank you for proving my point. :flowerforyou: It was observed centuries ago that there were "ectomorphs, mesomorphs and endomorphs". We can certainly influence what our body looks like and with the proper diet and exercise, no one needs to stay morbidly obese but will I ever have a body like yours? Not a chance. But I'm okay with that---living life successfully means being comfortable in your own skin. I'm finally comfortable in mine.
Besides being one data point, how does this prove your point? It's one person. She may be an outlier. There may be a lot more people like her. She is a friend of mine and very intelligent and well versed. I'm guessing when she get's to a computer, she's dig in and see what she can come up with for studies which may or may not prove your point. But her n=1 experience doesn't prove that there are naturally skinny people and more than your proves there are naturally fat people.
You don't seem to be clear on the whole "evidence" thing.
Guess I'm an outlier, funny how the majority of my friends and family have never been concerned about calories. Anyway, epigenetic marks affect all tissues including the germ line. Nutritionally induced alterations show how adaptive evolution may occur in humans. Read up on Michael Meaney's research, and Duke University's agouti mice babies.
Not at a computer, please forgive my errors when typing on my phone.0 -
Damn! Is the stupid mice still alive???:sad:
Yep---I'm alive and well in spite of attempted assassination. :laugh: Testosterone is such a dangerous substance. Tsk, Tsk. :ohwell:0 -
I am married to a scientist---I can assure you that I well know what evidence is. I understand that she and the paramedic are anecdotal but it defies reason to insist that everyone is the same. Everyone of us is unique
And here is where you and I would fundamentally disagree. With the exception of medical disorders like PCOS, Metabolic Sydrome, Diabetes, and Insulin Resistance, we are far more the same than different and pretty much the same physiological process happen in the vast majority of us with a small degree, like 10% or 15% max, variation. If that were not the case, why do studies because they wouldn't apply to many people. Why research cures? Why develop pharmacological therapies?
You choose to focus on the anecdotal and exptrapolate broader conclusions from that. I believe that is faulty logic.
A very good article from Lyle McDonald on this very concept: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html
Sorry I fouled up the quotes and don't know how to fix it!0 -
I think the poster you've quoted understands just fine.
While accounting for some differences in metabolism between individuals, I don't really believe there is anything such as a "natually thin" person. Usually, a when all the data is brought to light, it comes back to the energy balance equation for most people. I have yet to see any reliable documentation of a "naturally thin" person who is eating in a calorie surplus. If anyone has studies on this please post them.
Some people due have issues with being more suseptible to gain due to either disease like diabetes or thyroid issues or poor health/ fitness/ diet choices that cause insulin sensitivity issues but I've never seen reliable evidence of people that don't fall into any of those categories that gain weight on a maintenance diet or calories deficit. All evidence I've seen is n=1 ancedotal stuff. Again, if there are reliable studies and data that anyone is aware of regarding humans, please post them.
On my phone, so no studies but I am a naturally thin person. No health issues, never weighed more than 107 in my life, and I eat. Quite a bit. Unfortunately I was removed from the studies done at USF, over and over, I just didn't gain or lost it immediately. I'm not even keen on the set point theory but I know I'm not very active so NEAT has nothing to do with my weight. Just my genetic inheritance I suppose.
Thank you for proving my point. :flowerforyou: It was observed centuries ago that there were "ectomorphs, mesomorphs and endomorphs". We can certainly influence what our body looks like and with the proper diet and exercise, no one needs to stay morbidly obese but will I ever have a body like yours? Not a chance. But I'm okay with that---living life successfully means being comfortable in your own skin. I'm finally comfortable in mine.
Besides being one data point, how does this prove your point? It's one person. She may be an outlier. There may be a lot more people like her. She is a friend of mine and very intelligent and well versed. I'm guessing when she get's to a computer, she's dig in and see what she can come up with for studies which may or may not prove your point. But her n=1 experience doesn't prove that there are naturally skinny people and more than your proves there are naturally fat people.
You don't seem to be clear on the whole "evidence" thing.
Guess I'm an outlier, funny how the majority of my friends and family have never been concerned about calories. Anyway, epigenetic marks affect all tissues including the germ line. Nutritionally induced alterations show how adaptive evolution may occur in humans. Read up on Michael Meaney's research, and Duke University's agouti mice babies.
Not at a computer, please forgive my errors when typing on my phone.
You are right. That is a fascinating area of study! Not my area of expertise but I have read a bit about the field. What is worrisome is that the evidence suggests that what a mother eats (or, more to the point, doesn't get to eat) influences the expression of genes in future generations of her offspring--likely permanently.0 -
Damn! Is the stupid mice still alive???:sad:
Yep---I'm alive and well in spite of attempted assassination. :laugh: Testosterone is such a dangerous substance. Tsk, Tsk. :ohwell:
Interesting. So people are disagreeing with you because they are men?? Not because they have different ideas than yours?0 -
Mmapags: "A very good article from Lyle McDonald on this very concept: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html"
Lyle McDonald is NOT God...even though he acts like he is at times. Testosterone is a dangerous thing.0 -
Damn! Is the stupid mice still alive???:sad:
Yep---I'm alive and well in spite of attempted assassination. :laugh: Testosterone is such a dangerous substance. Tsk, Tsk. :ohwell:
Interesting. So people are disagreeing with you because they are men?? Not because they have different ideas than yours?
No---but I have noticed that some of the most quarrelsome and caustic people here are [male] body-builders.
p.s. This has been fun and all, guys, but I'm off to take care of my family.0 -
Damn! Is the stupid mice still alive???:sad:
Yep---I'm alive and well in spite of attempted assassination. :laugh: Testosterone is such a dangerous substance. Tsk, Tsk. :ohwell:
Interesting. So people are disagreeing with you because they are men?? Not because they have different ideas than yours?
No---but I have noticed that some of the most quarrelsome and caustic people here are body-builders.
Well, not sure what you mean if you are refering to me as I am not a body builder. I do a varied routine for overall health and fitness including biking, running, HIIT, metabolic weight training and resistance training. Another example of you jumping to conclusion based on thin evidence?0 -
I think the poster you've quoted understands just fine.
While accounting for some differences in metabolism between individuals, I don't really believe there is anything such as a "natually thin" person. Usually, a when all the data is brought to light, it comes back to the energy balance equation for most people. I have yet to see any reliable documentation of a "naturally thin" person who is eating in a calorie surplus. If anyone has studies on this please post them.
Some people due have issues with being more suseptible to gain due to either disease like diabetes or thyroid issues or poor health/ fitness/ diet choices that cause insulin sensitivity issues but I've never seen reliable evidence of people that don't fall into any of those categories that gain weight on a maintenance diet or calories deficit. All evidence I've seen is n=1 ancedotal stuff. Again, if there are reliable studies and data that anyone is aware of regarding humans, please post them.
On my phone, so no studies but I am a naturally thin person. No health issues, never weighed more than 107 in my life, and I eat. Quite a bit. Unfortunately I was removed from the studies done at USF, over and over, I just didn't gain or lost it immediately. I'm not even keen on the set point theory but I know I'm not very active so NEAT has nothing to do with my weight. Just my genetic inheritance I suppose.
Thank you for proving my point. :flowerforyou: It was observed centuries ago that there were "ectomorphs, mesomorphs and endomorphs". We can certainly influence what our body looks like and with the proper diet and exercise, no one needs to stay morbidly obese but will I ever have a body like yours? Not a chance. But I'm okay with that---living life successfully means being comfortable in your own skin. I'm finally comfortable in mine.
Besides being one data point, how does this prove your point? It's one person. She may be an outlier. There may be a lot more people like her. She is a friend of mine and very intelligent and well versed. I'm guessing when she get's to a computer, she's dig in and see what she can come up with for studies which may or may not prove your point. But her n=1 experience doesn't prove that there are naturally skinny people and more than your proves there are naturally fat people.
You don't seem to be clear on the whole "evidence" thing.
Guess I'm an outlier, funny how the majority of my friends and family have never been concerned about calories. Anyway, epigenetic marks affect all tissues including the germ line. Nutritionally induced alterations show how adaptive evolution may occur in humans. Read up on Michael Meaney's research, and Duke University's agouti mice babies.
Not at a computer, please forgive my errors when typing on my phone.
You are right. That is a fascinating area of study! Not my area of expertise but I have read a bit about the field. What is worrisome is that the evidence suggests that what a mother eats (or, more to the point, doesn't get to eat) influences the expression of genes in future generations of her offspring--likely permanently.
In the case of maternal inheritance, it's your grandmother. A human female is born and she already has the complete set of eggs she will have for life. The egg you developed from was created in your mother's ovaries while she was still in your grandmother's womb. When your grandmother passed those epigenetic signals to your mother she also passed half of your DNA.0 -
I see this silly "massive increase in sugar consumption" statistic bandied about by the anti-sugar brigade all the time. It sounds good and scary, but unfortunately, it doesn't actually match the actual data. Consumption of sugar has increased by roughly 8 grams per day over the last 40 years. Current consumption in the US is about 75 pounds per person, or about 91 grams per day. Meanwhile, fat consumption has increased by over 70% in that same timeframe. Unless 1970 showed some seriously dramatic changes in diet compared to the early part of the century, I'd say your numbers are wrong.
The problem with this idea is that you inherit your genes from your parents, who inherited them from your grandparents, etc. You don't inherit your genes from your friends, neighbors, people who like the same sports teams, people who live in your state or country, etc etc. If it were genetic, it would require that a new mutation JUST occurred in the last few decades when this epidemic started, and everyone who is obese would have been children or grandchildren of the original carrier. It would mean that several hundred million humans right now are all first cousins with each other.In spite of the way this thread imploded, I find the idea that weight might be genetically determined is actually hopeful.
Firstly, I think a genetic tendency isn't necessarily determination. It's like being geneticially predisposed to heart disease or cancer - it doesn't mean you have to get these illnesses, it's just a single factor (particularly if you do everything else right). Having this knowledge can make us more careful about other factors.
Secondly, maybe this means a new way of considering that we can be healthy at different weights. Maybe overweight people who are active and eat healthily will begin to be considered healthy instead of automatically dismissed as serious illness waiting to happen, and more healthy than thin people who rarely exercise and eat a lot of junk food. Then the phrase "I'm not doing this to be thin, I'm doing this to be healthy" can ring a little more true.
For those who said "this didn't happen to me so it's not true" might want to consider that just because it's not true for them doesn't mean it's not true at all. I actually had the opposite experience at a retreat where we only had two meals a day, breakfast and lunch, with a piece of fruit for dinner, I ate huge meals because I was so worried about being hungry, there is no way I was eating less calories in my two meals than I normally ate in three, but I lost 7 lbs in 10 days. I'm not suggesting this would work for everyone, but it sure affected my body in a way that made me drop weight.
Where are all these people who are active and eat healthily but are overweight? You mean like all of the obese baseball players, olympic athletes, tennis players, marathon runners, swimmers, ice skaters, bike racers, etc?Maybe overweight people who are active and eat healthily
The "obesity epidemic" perfectly tracks the increase in the consumption of sugar (sucrose). In 1900 the average American ate less than 5 pounds of sugar a year. Now the average is about 150 pounds a year. The typical diet that includes lots of processed food, contains about 500 calories a day in added sugar. The food processors use it because a.) it is a cheap filler and b.) more importantly (for them) it is addictive. That isn't the entire problem---the other part of the problem is our sedentary habits. Our ancestors got a lot more exercise---and did heavy manual labor, in particular, which built up their metabolic furnace (their lean muscle mass). In the nineteenth century, it was a status symbol to be "corpulent" because only the wealthy became obese--they could afford to eat lots of sugar (which was originally quite expensive) and they had servants to guarantee that they burned off fewer calories than their "poor relations". Interestingly, the amount of fat in the diet has remained relatively constant (we only eat, at the most, about 1% more fat in our diets). The extra calories that we eat today come from carbohydrates---specifically sugar.
The "fat switch" that causes the body to put on body fat and induces sluggishness, appears to be the fructose component of sugar/sucrose (sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose). Our bodies deal well with glucose and it does not appear to contribute to obesity and other metabolic problems. But fructose is a problem because our bodies do not handle large quantities of it very well. It may well be that those who have a tendency to obesity have a particularly intense reaction to fructose in the diet. While fruit eating isn't particularly problematic because most people simply don't eat that much fruit---eating sugar is a problem. To give you some idea of scale: a small Valencia orange has about 2 grams of fructose but an "orange" soda has about 26 grams of fructose (in a total of 44 grams of high fructose corn syrup). Most people do not gorge on fruit but they will eat a piece of "Carrot cake a la mode" from The Keg restaurant chain. There is 260 grams of sugar in that puppy---130 grams of which would be fructose (when obesity researchers recommend limiting fructose intake to 25 grams or less per day. It is easy to see why "we have a problem, Houston").
Other mammals, in preparation for hibernation, will consume as much fructose as they can get their little paws on. Black bears gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer and put on a lot of body fat in a very short time. But then, they burn off the excess fat over the winter. Unfortunately, we do not hibernate.
As for fructose, that's true, the human body doesn't process fructose well ON ITS OWN. However, when mixed in a 50/50 mix with glucose (as in sucrose) the body quite easily up regulates its ability to process and digest fructose. Scientists aren't 100% sure how it happens, but it seems to have something to do with the ability for fructose to co-transport with glucose on the GLUT2 transport protein. Also, increased fructose consumption leads to a much more efficient uptake and utilization of fructose after about 3 days of adjustment.0 -
Thank goodness I'm not a mouse!0
-
Wait, what? Centuries ago? Somatotypes (ectomorph, mesomorph, endomorph) were created in the 1940s, by a psychologist named William Sheldon. He came up with the concept by taking nude photographs of several thousand college students, and then looked at the pictures, grouped them by similar builds, and then essentially made up stories about the groups to describe traits, based solely on the photos he took, and their college transcript. It's a theory that has been completely debunked by all actual scientific research that has been conducted on it since then. Oh, and just for the record, the 1940s were NOT, in any sense of imagination or reality, "centuries ago."I think the poster you've quoted understands just fine.
While accounting for some differences in metabolism between individuals, I don't really believe there is anything such as a "natually thin" person. Usually, a when all the data is brought to light, it comes back to the energy balance equation for most people. I have yet to see any reliable documentation of a "naturally thin" person who is eating in a calorie surplus. If anyone has studies on this please post them.
Some people due have issues with being more suseptible to gain due to either disease like diabetes or thyroid issues or poor health/ fitness/ diet choices that cause insulin sensitivity issues but I've never seen reliable evidence of people that don't fall into any of those categories that gain weight on a maintenance diet or calories deficit. All evidence I've seen is n=1 ancedotal stuff. Again, if there are reliable studies and data that anyone is aware of regarding humans, please post them.
On my phone, so no studies but I am a naturally thin person. No health issues, never weighed more than 107 in my life, and I eat. Quite a bit. Unfortunately I was removed from the studies done at USF, over and over, I just didn't gain or lost it immediately. I'm not even keen on the set point theory but I know I'm not very active so NEAT has nothing to do with my weight. Just my genetic inheritance I suppose.
Thank you for proving my point. :flowerforyou: It was observed centuries ago that there were "ectomorphs, mesomorphs and endomorphs". We can certainly influence what our body looks like and with the proper diet and exercise, no one needs to stay morbidly obese but will I ever have a body like yours? Not a chance. But I'm okay with that---living life successfully means being comfortable in your own skin. I'm finally comfortable in mine.0 -
Wait, what? Centuries ago? Somatotypes (ectomorph, mesomorph, endomorph) were created in the 1940s, by a psychologist named William Sheldon. He came up with the concept by taking nude photographs off several thousand college students, and then looked at the pictures, grouped them by similar builds, and then essentially made up stories about the groups to describe traits, based solely on the photos he took, and their college transcript. It's a theory that has been completely debunked by all actual scientific research that has been conducted on it since then. Oh, and just for the record, the 1940s were NOT, in any sense of imagination or reality, "centuries ago."
Right? What's up with that....0 -
Mmapags: "A very good article from Lyle McDonald on this very concept: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html"
Lyle McDonald is NOT God...even though he acts like he is at times. Testosterone is a dangerous thing.
He is not God but he does base his conclusions on evidence that is presented in reliable studies and not his conjecture based on his anecdotal experience. You might want to try that sometime.0 -
I think the poster you've quoted understands just fine.
While accounting for some differences in metabolism between individuals, I don't really believe there is anything such as a "natually thin" person. Usually, a when all the data is brought to light, it comes back to the energy balance equation for most people. I have yet to see any reliable documentation of a "naturally thin" person who is eating in a calorie surplus. If anyone has studies on this please post them.
Some people due have issues with being more suseptible to gain due to either disease like diabetes or thyroid issues or poor health/ fitness/ diet choices that cause insulin sensitivity issues but I've never seen reliable evidence of people that don't fall into any of those categories that gain weight on a maintenance diet or calories deficit. All evidence I've seen is n=1 ancedotal stuff. Again, if there are reliable studies and data that anyone is aware of regarding humans, please post them.
On my phone, so no studies but I am a naturally thin person. No health issues, never weighed more than 107 in my life, and I eat. Quite a bit. Unfortunately I was removed from the studies done at USF, over and over, I just didn't gain or lost it immediately. I'm not even keen on the set point theory but I know I'm not very active so NEAT has nothing to do with my weight. Just my genetic inheritance I suppose.
Thank you for proving my point. :flowerforyou: It was observed centuries ago that there were "ectomorphs, mesomorphs and endomorphs". We can certainly influence what our body looks like and with the proper diet and exercise, no one needs to stay morbidly obese but will I ever have a body like yours? Not a chance. But I'm okay with that---living life successfully means being comfortable in your own skin. I'm finally comfortable in mine.
Besides being one data point, how does this prove your point? It's one person. She may be an outlier. There may be a lot more people like her. She is a friend of mine and very intelligent and well versed. I'm guessing when she get's to a computer, she's dig in and see what she can come up with for studies which may or may not prove your point. But her n=1 experience doesn't prove that there are naturally skinny people and more than your proves there are naturally fat people.
You don't seem to be clear on the whole "evidence" thing.
Guess I'm an outlier, funny how the majority of my friends and family have never been concerned about calories. Anyway, epigenetic marks affect all tissues including the germ line. Nutritionally induced alterations show how adaptive evolution may occur in humans. Read up on Michael Meaney's research, and Duke University's agouti mice babies.
Not at a computer, please forgive my errors when typing on my phone.
You are right. That is a fascinating area of study! Not my area of expertise but I have read a bit about the field. What is worrisome is that the evidence suggests that what a mother eats (or, more to the point, doesn't get to eat) influences the expression of genes in future generations of her offspring--likely permanently.
In the case of maternal inheritance, it's your grandmother. A human female is born and she already has the complete set of eggs she will have for life. The egg you developed from was created in your mother's ovaries while she was still in your grandmother's womb. When your grandmother passed those epigenetic signals to your mother she also passed half of your DNA.
So, does this indicate that if, say, several generations of grandmothers passed postive epigentic signals for weight control that thier offspring would have a metabolic advantage in terms of effective healthy weight maintenance? If so, there truly are people with lucky DNA!0 -
.....nvm0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions