A calorie is not a calorie - proof sugar is the problem.
Replies
-
I love Chamonix, France, really love it, but Paleo is such utter bs, it's just another version of Atkins aka no carb/low carb diet. Further, scientists say the low carb/no carb/no gluten this is a scam & bs.
BTW, just google PALEO DIET KIDNEY & you'll see TONS of people who got kidney stones from this diet. Fair warning. Not just KIDNEY STONES but people are getting full on KIDNEY DISEASE from it.
Further, a calorie is a calorie. Nutritional values are different, and it's always better to eat whole foods rather than anything processed of course.
OTOH I'm supremely envious of you living in Chamonix!!!
To be fair - paleo isn't low carb/no carb. There is no limit to carbs, however, since the diet requires you to cut out a large source of carbs it tends to be lower carb. Active people are still encouraged to get carbs from vegetable sources along with some fruit.
But you're cutting out BREAD entirely. I stand by my answer. And it's been documented by scientists that it's complete nonsense, bs, etc. As I said GOOGLE PALEO DIET KIDNEY. Just google it. See what happens. It's dangerous and people are getting SICK.
Yes, I didn't argue you don't cut out bread, I even referenced cutting out a whole source of carbs.
I'm not even arguing for the diet, just pointing out an inaccuracy.
I'm also not convinced it is that dangerous. You can certainly live without bread and grains and whatever else is elminated. you don't have to but you can. There are lots of other diets that are high in protein.
Is it unnecessarily restrictive, yes. Is it dangerous - if done right, not that I have ever seen.
I did google paleo diet kidney and found a lot of pro paleo topics about it. I didn't find any dangerous ones.
Then you're not looking hard enough. I found plenty of evidence of health issues. Anyways, I assume you're dedicated to this latest health FAD. Yuck. The last thing I'd want to do is follow a FAD, especially one that has health dangers. No milk, no dairy, no bread. ATKINS redux but you can eat fruits. It's RIDICULOUS and DANGEROUS.0 -
Seems we got the wrong guy in the 1980s - we should have eliminated the sugar, not the fat.
I agree with that. Instead they lowered the fat and replaced it with sugar as it is so cheap.
I don't think that you have to go back 3,000 years - my 86yr old grandmother has a fairly low sugar diet which is the pretty standard 1950s diet of unprocessed food and only a little bit of sugar.
David Gillespie's 'Sweet Poison' is a pretty good read too.
Interesting! My 87 year old grandmother eats a lot of sugar and always has. She drinks like a fish though - maybe that has something to do with it.0 -
I love Chamonix, France, really love it, but Paleo is such utter bs, it's just another version of Atkins aka no carb/low carb diet. Further, scientists say the low carb/no carb/no gluten this is a scam & bs.
BTW, just google PALEO DIET KIDNEY & you'll see TONS of people who got kidney stones from this diet. Fair warning. Not just KIDNEY STONES but people are getting full on KIDNEY DISEASE from it.
Further, a calorie is a calorie. Nutritional values are different, and it's always better to eat whole foods rather than anything processed of course.
OTOH I'm supremely envious of you living in Chamonix!!!
To be fair - paleo isn't low carb/no carb. There is no limit to carbs, however, since the diet requires you to cut out a large source of carbs it tends to be lower carb. Active people are still encouraged to get carbs from vegetable sources along with some fruit.
But you're cutting out BREAD entirely. I stand by my answer. And it's been documented by scientists that it's complete nonsense, bs, etc. As I said GOOGLE PALEO DIET KIDNEY. Just google it. See what happens. It's dangerous and people are getting SICK.
Yes, I didn't argue you don't cut out bread, I even referenced cutting out a whole source of carbs.
I'm not even arguing for the diet, just pointing out an inaccuracy.
I'm also not convinced it is that dangerous. You can certainly live without bread and grains and whatever else is elminated. you don't have to but you can. There are lots of other diets that are high in protein.
Is it unnecessarily restrictive, yes. Is it dangerous - if done right, not that I have ever seen.
I did google paleo diet kidney and found a lot of pro paleo topics about it. I didn't find any dangerous ones.
Then you're not looking hard enough. I found plenty of evidence of health issues. Anyways, I assume you're dedicated to this latest health FAD. Yuck. The last thing I'd want to do is follow a FAD, especially one that has health dangers. No milk, no dairy, no bread. ATKINS redux but you can eat fruits. It's RIDICULOUS and DANGEROUS.
Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't defending the diet itself? Where i even agree that it was unnecessarily restrictive? While I may not agree with the diet, I don't agree with how dangerous you seem to think it is. Its a little alarmist. Yes, I'm sure if I look hard enough I can find claims of problems with the diet. I can also find plenty of claims the counter that argument.
I don't eat dairy, I can't. You can get every nutrient from other sources that you do from grains.
My macros are also set similar to what the average paleo macros are (40/30/30).0 -
While I'm happy for everyone that can lose weight eating sugar, for those of us at risk of diabetes keeping a lot of sugar in the diet is simply madness and I find it shocking how so many people will jump all over people cutting down on sugar and carbs saying its pointless and eating carbs is fine just because THEY happen to be able to handle it.
I think it's pretty crazy considering just how many people have diabetes, pre diabetes or are at risk and also considering how sugar and carbs simply are not essential nutrients unlike protein and fat
I don't think anyone has really been advocating that people with blood sugar disorders or diabetes should start eating high sugar diets. Mostly people are just refuting this idea that, for people who do not have a problem that forces them to cut drastically back on sugar, there is something wrong with eating it. I also love how people constantly deem sugar and carbs "non essential" considering how they are the fuel that runs your entire body.
Of course anyone who overindulges extensively is putting their body at risk to develop diabetes. That is another good reason why people shouldn't ridiculously over-indulge. But I would argue that ridiculously over-indulging in any one thing is bad for you. On the flip side, I have to argue that, for an average person with no particular health problems, completely cutting out one particular item (including sugar and carbs), is equally bad for you. I get irritated with threads on sites all over the web that want to come down on one particular food group or item as "the devil" of weight gain and if we would all just stop eating that one thing we would all stop being fat. The human body is far too complex for a) this to work even for most people and b) for this to not to throw your body out of balance and affect all kinds of inner-workings you don't even know about. I just get really tired of people advocating their secret solution of demonizing a particular food, whether it be fat, sugar, carbs, or whatever. Just wait, in a couple of years protein will be the new villain in the weight loss fight. If you want to lose weight, you just have to take care of all of you -- eat in balance, don't over-indulge, don't rob your body of essential nutrients, exercise regularly, and remember that your psychology has a say in what works for you.
TL/DR: No one would expect a diabetic to start eating a bunch of sugar. Personally, I just get sick of people picking on one thing to solve all of the obesity in the world when weight loss is such a complex issue.
Just wanted to correct you on some misconceptions. Everything you eat turns into glucose including fat and protein, that is why you don't need carbs in your diet to live. The pathway to glucose for Fat, Protein, and Carbs are all different inside of your body. In most diabetics, the pathway from carbs/glucose to muscle is broken but there are some diabetics in which all three pathways no longer work.
Another thing about Diabetics that people do not understand or that they are in denial to understand is that, the AMA recommendations to get tested is at age 45 or if you are 30 pounds overweight but a majority of Americans do not get tested even if they know that they are overweight and waiting until age 45 is a long ways away. To put this in perspective, one third of Americans are insulin resistant which is another word for being prediabetic, they just don't know that they are insulin resistant because they think that their normal or in denial.
The OP says that it is easier for him to lose weight by cutting out most carbs and to me, that sounds like he might be insulin resistant. There are people who are insulin sensitive which means that they can do fine eating lots of carbs. I believe Lyle McDonald explains the comparison between insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people best in the link below. Lyle forgot to mention that a Blood Glucose kit can help you determine if you are insulin resistant or insulin sensitive.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-sensitivity-and-fat-loss.html
.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
While I'm happy for everyone that can lose weight eating sugar, for those of us at risk of diabetes keeping a lot of sugar in the diet is simply madness and I find it shocking how so many people will jump all over people cutting down on sugar and carbs saying its pointless and eating carbs is fine just because THEY happen to be able to handle it.
I think it's pretty crazy considering just how many people have diabetes, pre diabetes or are at risk and also considering how sugar and carbs simply are not essential nutrients unlike protein and fat
I don't think anyone has really been advocating that people with blood sugar disorders or diabetes should start eating high sugar diets. Mostly people are just refuting this idea that, for people who do not have a problem that forces them to cut drastically back on sugar, there is something wrong with eating it. I also love how people constantly deem sugar and carbs "non essential" considering how they are the fuel that runs your entire body.
Of course anyone who overindulges extensively is putting their body at risk to develop diabetes. That is another good reason why people shouldn't ridiculously over-indulge. But I would argue that ridiculously over-indulging in any one thing is bad for you. On the flip side, I have to argue that, for an average person with no particular health problems, completely cutting out one particular item (including sugar and carbs), is equally bad for you. I get irritated with threads on sites all over the web that want to come down on one particular food group or item as "the devil" of weight gain and if we would all just stop eating that one thing we would all stop being fat. The human body is far too complex for a) this to work even for most people and b) for this to not to throw your body out of balance and affect all kinds of inner-workings you don't even know about. I just get really tired of people advocating their secret solution of demonizing a particular food, whether it be fat, sugar, carbs, or whatever. Just wait, in a couple of years protein will be the new villain in the weight loss fight. If you want to lose weight, you just have to take care of all of you -- eat in balance, don't over-indulge, don't rob your body of essential nutrients, exercise regularly, and remember that your psychology has a say in what works for you.
TL/DR: No one would expect a diabetic to start eating a bunch of sugar. Personally, I just get sick of people picking on one thing to solve all of the obesity in the world when weight loss is such a complex issue.
Just wanted to correct you on some misconceptions. Everything you eat turns into glucose including fat and protein, that is why you don't need carbs in your diet to live. The pathway to glucose for Fat, Protein, and Carbs are all different inside of your body. In most diabetics, the pathway from carbs/glucose to muscle is broken but there are some diabetics in which all three pathways no longer work.
Another thing about Diabetics that people do not understand or that they are in denial to understand is that, the AMA recommendations to get tested is at age 45 or if you are 30 pounds overweight but a majority of Americans do not get tested even if they know that they are overweight and waiting until age 45 is a long ways away. To put this in perspective, one third of Americans are insulin resistant which is another word for being prediabetic, they just don't know that they are insulin resistant because they think that their normal or in denial.
The OP says that it is easier for him to lose weight by cutting out most carbs and to me, that sounds like he might be insulin resistant. There are people who are insulin sensitive which means that they can do fine eating lots of carbs. I believe Lyle McDonald explains the comparison between insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people best in the link below. Lyle forgot to mention that a Blood Glucose kit can help you determine if you are insulin resistant or insulin sensitive.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-sensitivity-and-fat-loss.html
.
I understand what you are trying to explain about gluconeogenesis (converting fats and proteins to glucose via the liver and kidneys), however this is only meant to be a homeostasis mechanism that the body uses to keep your blood sugar from dropping too low when you are asleep or in need (ie. starvation, extremely high insulin in the blood). It is not meant to be the mechanism that your body uses as a means of producing all of its glucose. I know some diabetics and I know that their diets do include small amounts of carbs and simple sugars. This is because the body does require these things in order to function -- the body processes them for immediate energy and long-term energy storage. Of course, due to insulin issues a diabetic can only eat these items in very small quantities, so I imagine that the process of gluconeogenesis is especially important to a diabetic in order to prevent the blood sugar from dropping too low. That does not, however, negate my statement that carbs and sugars are indeed an essential nutrient. Without them, you don't even have energy to burn to fuel the process of gluconeogenesis.
In terms of not needing carbs in your diet to live -- you really do, actually. This is why even diets like Atkins eventually have to get people off of the low carb cycle. If you continue to eat no or extremely low carbs for an extended period of time, it does force your body to use only proteins and fats to make it's glucose. However, there is a major price to pay. Because your body is not able to fully breakdown fatty acids and amines (from protein) without adequate carbohydrates, the person will begin to experience a buildup of ketones in the body. This is a very bad thing and leads to ketoacidosis, which will eventually lead to kidney failure and possibly death. Therefore, carbohydrates are 100% an essential nutrient. It is possible to eat a low carb diet safely (and many diabetics do), but it should be done under the supervision of a doctor. And I can guarantee you that the doctor will not recommend that you eat 0% carbs.
Also, I don't doubt your assertion that there are a lot of people who are insulin resistant and don't know it and that this is related to their difficulties with controlling their weight. I'm actually a big believer that this is true. To me, this just highlights the fact that there is a big difference between saying "I won't eat sugar because it's evil" and "I'm not going to eat an entire pound of sugar every week." Sugar is a substance that has major consequences if you eat too much of it. However, sugar is not an evil substance that no one should eat ever. There are some people who, like me, do much better with their overall weight loss plans if they indulge just a little on a regular basis. And that is because weight loss is about more than just biochemistry. It's also about psychology and the whole individual.0 -
I've never heard that not eating carbs can cause Ketoacidosis. Do you have a source for this? A quick google search doesn't seem to support that idea.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/diabetic-ketoacidosis/DS00674/DSECTION=causes0 -
This is an interesting read.
http://www.rhema.co.nz/images/stories/featured/my_top_3_secrets_for_losing_25kgs_ebook.pdf
I read it, was skeptical but then did my own research. Still not sure if it works but a lot of what he says makes sense.
(I think the articles only available to Aus and NZers though sorry everyone else)0 -
kewl story bro0
-
It seems like it's a misconception a lot of people have (the ketoacidosis) It can happen with an extremely low carb diet but all the medical sites i've read that separate out dietary ketosis and ketoacidosis make a point to say that the acid can only happen if you're diabetic (or borderline) or alcoholic and that it's very rare in the type 2.0
-
I personally agree with the whole "sugar is the enemy" debate - but that's because doesn't react well with MY body. I have a bit, I want more and it all gets out of control.
It's all very well to bring out the CICO arguments and "broscience" but in the end, we ARE individuals and some people just deal with some things better than others - that includes people and food and all sorts of issues.
Like you wouldn't tell someone with Celiac disease to "just eat wheat in moderation and you'll be fine", or try to get an alcoholic at a party to "just have one drink". Some people can't eat sugar.
Sugar isn't the problem, it's peoples narrow mindedness. It takes all types to make a world.0 -
0 -
I've never heard that not eating carbs can cause Ketoacidosis. Do you have a source for this? A quick google search doesn't seem to support that idea.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/diabetic-ketoacidosis/DS00674/DSECTION=causes
For ketoacidosis: http://www.livestrong.com/article/297064-low-carb-diets-ketoacidosis/
Upon reviewing some other articles and my post, I realize I was mistaken in not making the distinction between ketoacidosis that happens in diabetics and dietary ketosis that occurs in non diabetics My primary reference for ketoacidosis is a friend who was on the Atkins diet and took it upon herself to stay in the induction stage for way too long. She was a Type II diabetic and was admitted to the hospital for kidney failure and was told by the doctor that staying ultra low carb for too long was the cause. In her case she did indeed go into ketoacidosis, but that would be due to her diabetes.
For Carbohydrates as essential nutrients: http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/fats/fatty-acids-metabolism---how-the-body-makes-energy.html
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/622overview.html
For Gluconeogenesis: http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/gluconeogenesis.php
http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/gluconeogenesis.php
http://d3jonline.tripod.com/01-Biochemistry_and_Cell_Biology/Gluconeogenesis_and_Glucose_Homeostasis.htm0 -
More alarmist bull.............of course it doesn't cause ketoacidosis.......people confuse that with ketosis all the time.I've never heard that not eating carbs can cause Ketoacidosis. Do you have a source for this? A quick google search doesn't seem to support that idea.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/diabetic-ketoacidosis/DS00674/DSECTION=causes0 -
Dr's prescribe a low carb diet for people with diabetes regularly........Type 1 diabetes and ketoacidosis is where 95% of that connection is not type 2, but that's not to say your friend didn't have a bout of it.I've never heard that not eating carbs can cause Ketoacidosis. Do you have a source for this? A quick google search doesn't seem to support that idea.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/diabetic-ketoacidosis/DS00674/DSECTION=causes
For ketoacidosis: http://www.livestrong.com/article/297064-low-carb-diets-ketoacidosis/
Upon reviewing some other articles and my post, I realize I was mistaken in not making the distinction between ketoacidosis that happens in diabetics and dietary ketosis that occurs in non diabetics My primary reference for ketoacidosis is a friend who was on the Atkins diet and took it upon herself to stay in the induction stage for way too long. She was a Type II diabetic and was admitted to the hospital for kidney failure and was told by the doctor that staying ultra low carb for too long was the cause. In her case she did indeed go into ketoacidosis, but that would be due to her diabetes.
For Carbohydrates as essential nutrients: http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/fats/fatty-acids-metabolism---how-the-body-makes-energy.html
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/622overview.html
For Gluconeogenesis: http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/gluconeogenesis.php
http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/gluconeogenesis.php
http://d3jonline.tripod.com/01-Biochemistry_and_Cell_Biology/Gluconeogenesis_and_Glucose_Homeostasis.htm0 -
wamydia, Peter Attia has an informative/factual series of articles on ketosis you might be interested in.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/ketosis-advantaged-or-misunderstood-state-part-i0 -
Curious
For those who claim they can lose weight while eating loads of sugar, have any of you ever been very overweight or obese?
I think this is a really important distinction to make when talking about this issue because the idea is is that if you are someone who has problems with sugar, you are going to get obese and to lose that weight you have to cut down on sugar.
If you've never been really overweight then it's likely you don't have an issue with sugar, in which case this doesn't apply to you.
I was obese then overweight and now a healthy weight. I didn't cut out sugar all the way. I ate plenty of sugar, but also counted my calories!0 -
Bump0
-
I have been losing weight at a pretty consistent rate and have not cut sugar out of my diet. Maybe your body is different or maybe you ate way more chocolate than you thought you were eating. I say, if you're within your calorie range, eat whatever the heck you want.0
-
meh.
Caloric value does not determine what a given material will turn into once it is in your system. All it is meant to tell you is how much potential energy is in the material.
Restricting calories will always work because it limits the potential for growth absolutely.
Restricting food sources will sometimes work if you happen to get the right foods in there at the right time.
choose your own adventure.0 -
Saying a calorie isn't a calorie is just like saying a pound isn't a pound. YES IT IS! A calorie is a unit of measurement - nothing more, nothing less. Specifically, a calorie is the amount of energy required to heat 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celsius.0
-
0
-
I tell you what OP... if you really want to prove to us that sugar is the problem, then continue your diet as you do, but eat 1,000 calories above maintenance. Then, report back to us your results.
I don't think you've understood the point about calories. What these guys are saying (Lustig) is that if you eat say 2000 a day with high GI carb loading, the increased insulin levels might cause say 500 of those to get stored into fat rather than being burned. So you only have 1500 a day available to your muscles and organs. So you feel hungry, so you eat more.. This is what they mean about we are eating more because we are getting fat and not vice versa. The First Law of Thermodynamics is intact (energy is constant in a closed system - i.e. energy balance) but it doesn't tell us anything about causation. This biochemical model of fat storage does.
It would be interesting to do a study where one ate say 2000 calories of real food in one test group and another group also ate 2000 calories but had 1000 cals replaced by sugar and bread etc and see how that pans out over a year or two. I doubt it could every be controlled accurately or even if it's ethical but I suspect that group 2 would have higher body fat % and experience more hunger pangs. 1000 cals a day from simple carbs is not excessive either - try a large coke and large fries at Macky Ds.
Clearly a calorie is not a calorie even if you ignore metabolism problems with Fructose. Sugar provides ZERO nutrients. 100 cals of ANY other food is ALWAYS better for you than 100 cals of sugar because every other food contains at least some other nutrient.
I know you can lose weight on sugar - I lost 50lbs while calorie counting and keeping my sweet treats / cheats. There are twinkie diets and all sorts of low nutrient diets you can lose weight on. We are bit more enlightened here I hope.
If I had dropped the treats and replaced it with say protein, maybe my body fat % wouldn't still be 20% and I wouldn't have lost some muscle along with the fat? I'm pretty sure any fitness coach would say that would have been better. We are all learning I guess.
We are in the business of asking how do we lose the fat (not the weight) off our bodies whilst feeling good and healthy and not suffering from hunger and cravings. I think the evidence shows that sugar is a major obstacle to those objectives. If it turns out that sugar is the elixir of life and a fantastic fat burning food, I'll be more than happy to pull out the kit kat chunkies again I assure you :-)
This will be the third time I post this, since you seem to gloss over it, 43% of caloric intake as sucrose or 21.5% of intake as fructose, oh noes!
Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.
www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
I can only see the abstract but that is a very small 6 week study. From what I gather it is also total calorie controlled. That type is a very poor indicator of real world self regulated eating. I don't have time to go dig it up but I remember at least one comparing HFLC, LFHC, and another group. In the end HFLC group saw the most weight loss and controlled calorie intake more easily then the other 2 groups.0 -
Ah. You've found the problem, good. YOU WILL NEVER GAIN WEIGHT AGAIN.0
-
I can only see the abstract but that is a very small 6 week study. From what I gather it is also total calorie controlled. That type is a very poor indicator of real world self regulated eating. I don't have time to go dig it up but I remember at least one comparing HFLC, LFHC, and another group. In the end HFLC group saw the most weight loss and controlled calorie intake more easily then the other 2 groups.
You think a study where calories are not controlled will be more beneficial?0 -
I can only see the abstract but that is a very small 6 week study. From what I gather it is also total calorie controlled. That type is a very poor indicator of real world self regulated eating. I don't have time to go dig it up but I remember at least one comparing HFLC, LFHC, and another group. In the end HFLC group saw the most weight loss and controlled calorie intake more easily then the other 2 groups.
You think a study where calories are not controlled will be more beneficial?
When looking at naturally controlling calorie intake, yes. After isn't half of this thread arguing that the problem is eating too many calories?0 -
I can only see the abstract but that is a very small 6 week study. From what I gather it is also total calorie controlled. That type is a very poor indicator of real world self regulated eating. I don't have time to go dig it up but I remember at least one comparing HFLC, LFHC, and another group. In the end HFLC group saw the most weight loss and controlled calorie intake more easily then the other 2 groups.
You think a study where calories are not controlled will be more beneficial?
When looking at naturally controlling calorie intake, yes. After isn't half of this thread arguing that the problem is eating too many calories?
Which may be relevant for ad lib eating, but not for people who track there food...like on here. It would only indicate the impact that it has on behavior/adherence - not anything to do with 'a calorie is not a calorie'.0 -
A calorie is a calorie. That is fact.
Another fact, seemingly unknown to many for some reason, is that our bodies use calories differently depending on need & the source of the calories.
How our bodies use the foods we eat is not really simple and we are still learning about it. Researching the subject can be fascinating & time-consuming.0 -
Strong broscience.
I rely on broscience. When a see a fit guy or woman I ask them what they eat- broscience.0 -
I do not agree a calorie is a calorie. A calorie from glucose eaten is very efficiently used as energy by body. A calorie eaten from a complex carb must be converted (i.e. energy spent) to a form where it can be used as energy. Thus, if you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 efficient calories- maintain weight. If you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 calories that are not efficient, must be converted, there will be a calorie deficit for the energy of conversion-i.e. weight loss.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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