Is Diet Pepsi Really Bad For Me?
Replies
-
So for the OP's question, the general answer /should/ have been, "Find out for yourself." ? Since neither group study nor personal experience would help them.
You don't undersand why, when someone asks 'is diet soda bad for me', people use studies to answer the question and tend to frown on people using personal anecdotes to answer the question?
Simply put it's because your experience isn't the experience of others but studies about things like aspartame and the lack of harm it causes in humans *do* apply to the population at large. Coming forth and saying "I feel better without diet soda" is about as worth while as someone with a peanut allergy saying 'I feel better without peanuts!' That's nice and all but what does it mean for people without that allergy?
No a damn thing.
OP didn't ask if you feel better without diet soda, they asked if diet soda is bad for them. Your personal experience has no bearing on that.
No the answer is "these studies show that diet soda has no ill effects on people barring allergies and will not impact your health." They already know how diet soda effects them personally, so telling them to find out for themself is silly. They're asking specifically about the healthfulness of it, which is something that can be answered.
These studies are all funded by companies that sell aspartame. That's about the same as trusting a cigarette study funded by Marlboro.
You mean the studies that found aspertame can be harmful in large amounts were funded by companies that sell aspartame?
Well they handled that rather poorly didn't they? Probably should have labled it totally harmless if they were gonna be doing shady stuff.
I meant the studies that showed aspartame has no ill effects other than to those with allergies. It was a reply to the one right above mine.
I just think people should take things with a grain of salt. No, it's probably not causing tumors, but I have a hard time believing it is completely, without a doubt, 100% healthy. Science is always changing and we know things that we certainly didn't know 100, 50 or even 5 years ago. Research and science is never absolute.0 -
<---- lives on coke zero.
Is still alive.
Doesn't mean your cells are healthy.
My grams smokes. She's still alive.
Alright, what would your definition of a healthy person be then, smarty pants?
Still hoping for an answer to this one. Am worried about that my cells may be unhealthy...0 -
So for the OP's question, the general answer /should/ have been, "Find out for yourself." ? Since neither group study nor personal experience would help them.
You don't undersand why, when someone asks 'is diet soda bad for me', people use studies to answer the question and tend to frown on people using personal anecdotes to answer the question?
Simply put it's because your experience isn't the experience of others but studies about things like aspartame and the lack of harm it causes in humans *do* apply to the population at large. Coming forth and saying "I feel better without diet soda" is about as worth while as someone with a peanut allergy saying 'I feel better without peanuts!' That's nice and all but what does it mean for people without that allergy?
No a damn thing.
OP didn't ask if you feel better without diet soda, they asked if diet soda is bad for them. Your personal experience has no bearing on that.
No the answer is "these studies show that diet soda has no ill effects on people barring allergies and will not impact your health." They already know how diet soda effects them personally, so telling them to find out for themself is silly. They're asking specifically about the healthfulness of it, which is something that can be answered.
These studies are all funded by companies that sell aspartame. That's about the same as trusting a cigarette study funded by Marlboro.
You mean the studies that found aspertame can be harmful in large amounts were funded by companies that sell aspartame?
Well they handled that rather poorly didn't they? Probably should have labled it totally harmless if they were gonna be doing shady stuff.
I meant the studies that showed aspartame has no ill effects other than to those with allergies. It was a reply to the one right above mine.
I just think people should take things with a grain of salt. No, it's probably not causing tumors, but I have a hard time believing it is completely, without a doubt, 100% healthy. Science is always changing and we know things that we certainly didn't know 100, 50 or even 5 years ago. Research and science is never absolute.
What about potatoes? Do potatoes cause tumors? Shouldn't we study them some more?0 -
So for the OP's question, the general answer /should/ have been, "Find out for yourself." ? Since neither group study nor personal experience would help them.
You don't undersand why, when someone asks 'is diet soda bad for me', people use studies to answer the question and tend to frown on people using personal anecdotes to answer the question?
Simply put it's because your experience isn't the experience of others but studies about things like aspartame and the lack of harm it causes in humans *do* apply to the population at large. Coming forth and saying "I feel better without diet soda" is about as worth while as someone with a peanut allergy saying 'I feel better without peanuts!' That's nice and all but what does it mean for people without that allergy?
No a damn thing.
OP didn't ask if you feel better without diet soda, they asked if diet soda is bad for them. Your personal experience has no bearing on that.
No the answer is "these studies show that diet soda has no ill effects on people barring allergies and will not impact your health." They already know how diet soda effects them personally, so telling them to find out for themself is silly. They're asking specifically about the healthfulness of it, which is something that can be answered.
These studies are all funded by companies that sell aspartame. That's about the same as trusting a cigarette study funded by Marlboro.
You mean the studies that found aspertame can be harmful in large amounts were funded by companies that sell aspartame?
Well they handled that rather poorly didn't they? Probably should have labled it totally harmless if they were gonna be doing shady stuff.
I meant the studies that showed aspartame has no ill effects other than to those with allergies. It was a reply to the one right above mine.
I just think people should take things with a grain of salt. No, it's probably not causing tumors, but I have a hard time believing it is completely, without a doubt, 100% healthy. Science is always changing and we know things that we certainly didn't know 100, 50 or even 5 years ago. Research and science is never absolute.
What about potatoes? Do potatoes cause tumors? Shouldn't we study them some more?
Potatoes are grown, not man-made. That's completely different. And I definitely said that I DOUBT aspartame is causing tumors. I can tell you just really want to argue, but we don't know everything and never will. Research changes CONSTANTLY. I'm not saying no one should drink it. I'm just saying people should realize that not everything should be taken at face value. We used to use a lot of cancer causing plastics before they were researched more. Sure, most people didn't get cancer but some still did. It may not cause cancer, but it's still a man-made chemical and people are perfectly allowed to not want to put that into their bodies.0 -
Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good for you, just because something is not natural doesn't mean it's bad for you.0
-
Everything in moderation.
Water should be your primary "liquid" throughout the day.0 -
On a side note, taste-wise....
Diet Pepsi > Diet Coke
This is a feud I've never understood. They have different notes, but overall I rate the two colas (diet and otherwise) pretty much equal. I've been in the mood for one over the other, but I don't personally have a preference. I just find it really interesting.
Yeah, I enjoy the "regular" versions of both Coke and Pepsi. Sometimes I'm in the mood for one over the other too. But, with the diet versions, Coke is just a no-no for me. I can't stand the taste lol.
Hey man, everybody's different. I just think it's really interesting how deep the divide can go.
If I can just ask... does adding a flavor change Diet Coke for you? Like if it's cherry or with lime?
Hmm, I didn't even know they had flavored versions. My eye usually just glosses over the Diet Coke section hahaha. Next time I see it, I'll try a can!0 -
I get bloated out from the carbonation, but I still love pop... and the carbonated flavored water at Wally-World.
I get plenty of water in but at meals I usually down a pop or carbonated water.0 -
So for the OP's question, the general answer /should/ have been, "Find out for yourself." ? Since neither group study nor personal experience would help them.
You don't undersand why, when someone asks 'is diet soda bad for me', people use studies to answer the question and tend to frown on people using personal anecdotes to answer the question?
Simply put it's because your experience isn't the experience of others but studies about things like aspartame and the lack of harm it causes in humans *do* apply to the population at large. Coming forth and saying "I feel better without diet soda" is about as worth while as someone with a peanut allergy saying 'I feel better without peanuts!' That's nice and all but what does it mean for people without that allergy?
No a damn thing.
OP didn't ask if you feel better without diet soda, they asked if diet soda is bad for them. Your personal experience has no bearing on that.
No the answer is "these studies show that diet soda has no ill effects on people barring allergies and will not impact your health." They already know how diet soda effects them personally, so telling them to find out for themself is silly. They're asking specifically about the healthfulness of it, which is something that can be answered.
These studies are all funded by companies that sell aspartame. That's about the same as trusting a cigarette study funded by Marlboro.
You mean the studies that found aspertame can be harmful in large amounts were funded by companies that sell aspartame?
Well they handled that rather poorly didn't they? Probably should have labled it totally harmless if they were gonna be doing shady stuff.
I meant the studies that showed aspartame has no ill effects other than to those with allergies. It was a reply to the one right above mine.
I just think people should take things with a grain of salt. No, it's probably not causing tumors, but I have a hard time believing it is completely, without a doubt, 100% healthy. Science is always changing and we know things that we certainly didn't know 100, 50 or even 5 years ago. Research and science is never absolute.
Same studies. There are no ill effects in humans, except in the case of allergies. Unless you're drinking what amounts to 2 or 3 24 can packs a day (large amounts).
It seems to me if they were up to no good they'd just say harmless but, in fact, the studies do admit that stupid large amounts cab cause harm. The very studies you scoff at.0 -
So for the OP's question, the general answer /should/ have been, "Find out for yourself." ? Since neither group study nor personal experience would help them.
You don't undersand why, when someone asks 'is diet soda bad for me', people use studies to answer the question and tend to frown on people using personal anecdotes to answer the question?
Simply put it's because your experience isn't the experience of others but studies about things like aspartame and the lack of harm it causes in humans *do* apply to the population at large. Coming forth and saying "I feel better without diet soda" is about as worth while as someone with a peanut allergy saying 'I feel better without peanuts!' That's nice and all but what does it mean for people without that allergy?
No a damn thing.
OP didn't ask if you feel better without diet soda, they asked if diet soda is bad for them. Your personal experience has no bearing on that.
No the answer is "these studies show that diet soda has no ill effects on people barring allergies and will not impact your health." They already know how diet soda effects them personally, so telling them to find out for themself is silly. They're asking specifically about the healthfulness of it, which is something that can be answered.
These studies are all funded by companies that sell aspartame. That's about the same as trusting a cigarette study funded by Marlboro.
You mean the studies that found aspertame can be harmful in large amounts were funded by companies that sell aspartame?
Well they handled that rather poorly didn't they? Probably should have labled it totally harmless if they were gonna be doing shady stuff.
I meant the studies that showed aspartame has no ill effects other than to those with allergies. It was a reply to the one right above mine.
I just think people should take things with a grain of salt. No, it's probably not causing tumors, but I have a hard time believing it is completely, without a doubt, 100% healthy. Science is always changing and we know things that we certainly didn't know 100, 50 or even 5 years ago. Research and science is never absolute.
Same studies. There are no ill effects in humans, except in the case of allergies. Unless you're drinking what amounts to 2 or 3 24 can packs a day (large amounts).
It seems to me if they were up to no good they'd just say harmless but, in fact, the studies do admit that stupid large amounts cab cause harm. The very studies you scoff at.
They are just wily.0 -
So for the OP's question, the general answer /should/ have been, "Find out for yourself." ? Since neither group study nor personal experience would help them.
You don't undersand why, when someone asks 'is diet soda bad for me', people use studies to answer the question and tend to frown on people using personal anecdotes to answer the question?
Simply put it's because your experience isn't the experience of others but studies about things like aspartame and the lack of harm it causes in humans *do* apply to the population at large. Coming forth and saying "I feel better without diet soda" is about as worth while as someone with a peanut allergy saying 'I feel better without peanuts!' That's nice and all but what does it mean for people without that allergy?
No a damn thing.
OP didn't ask if you feel better without diet soda, they asked if diet soda is bad for them. Your personal experience has no bearing on that.
No the answer is "these studies show that diet soda has no ill effects on people barring allergies and will not impact your health." They already know how diet soda effects them personally, so telling them to find out for themself is silly. They're asking specifically about the healthfulness of it, which is something that can be answered.
These studies are all funded by companies that sell aspartame. That's about the same as trusting a cigarette study funded by Marlboro.
You mean the studies that found aspertame can be harmful in large amounts were funded by companies that sell aspartame?
Well they handled that rather poorly didn't they? Probably should have labled it totally harmless if they were gonna be doing shady stuff.
I meant the studies that showed aspartame has no ill effects other than to those with allergies. It was a reply to the one right above mine.
I just think people should take things with a grain of salt. No, it's probably not causing tumors, but I have a hard time believing it is completely, without a doubt, 100% healthy. Science is always changing and we know things that we certainly didn't know 100, 50 or even 5 years ago. Research and science is never absolute.
What about potatoes? Do potatoes cause tumors? Shouldn't we study them some more?
Potatoes have chemicals.
0 -
So for the OP's question, the general answer /should/ have been, "Find out for yourself." ? Since neither group study nor personal experience would help them.
You don't undersand why, when someone asks 'is diet soda bad for me', people use studies to answer the question and tend to frown on people using personal anecdotes to answer the question?
Simply put it's because your experience isn't the experience of others but studies about things like aspartame and the lack of harm it causes in humans *do* apply to the population at large. Coming forth and saying "I feel better without diet soda" is about as worth while as someone with a peanut allergy saying 'I feel better without peanuts!' That's nice and all but what does it mean for people without that allergy?
No a damn thing.
OP didn't ask if you feel better without diet soda, they asked if diet soda is bad for them. Your personal experience has no bearing on that.
No the answer is "these studies show that diet soda has no ill effects on people barring allergies and will not impact your health." They already know how diet soda effects them personally, so telling them to find out for themself is silly. They're asking specifically about the healthfulness of it, which is something that can be answered.
These studies are all funded by companies that sell aspartame. That's about the same as trusting a cigarette study funded by Marlboro.
You mean the studies that found aspertame can be harmful in large amounts were funded by companies that sell aspartame?
Well they handled that rather poorly didn't they? Probably should have labled it totally harmless if they were gonna be doing shady stuff.
I meant the studies that showed aspartame has no ill effects other than to those with allergies. It was a reply to the one right above mine.
I just think people should take things with a grain of salt. No, it's probably not causing tumors, but I have a hard time believing it is completely, without a doubt, 100% healthy. Science is always changing and we know things that we certainly didn't know 100, 50 or even 5 years ago. Research and science is never absolute.
What about potatoes? Do potatoes cause tumors? Shouldn't we study them some more?
Potatoes have chemicals.
They are members of the NIGHTSHADE family.0 -
I love diet Pepsi. I make sure I get my two liters of seltzer water in a day but I also enjoy my Diet Pepsi. I also find Diet root beer to be a treat. I will let my weight loss speak for itself. I have kept it off for 11+ years. and except for Multiple Sclerosis I am completely healthy0
-
So for the OP's question, the general answer /should/ have been, "Find out for yourself." ? Since neither group study nor personal experience would help them.
You don't undersand why, when someone asks 'is diet soda bad for me', people use studies to answer the question and tend to frown on people using personal anecdotes to answer the question?
Simply put it's because your experience isn't the experience of others but studies about things like aspartame and the lack of harm it causes in humans *do* apply to the population at large. Coming forth and saying "I feel better without diet soda" is about as worth while as someone with a peanut allergy saying 'I feel better without peanuts!' That's nice and all but what does it mean for people without that allergy?
No a damn thing.
OP didn't ask if you feel better without diet soda, they asked if diet soda is bad for them. Your personal experience has no bearing on that.
No the answer is "these studies show that diet soda has no ill effects on people barring allergies and will not impact your health." They already know how diet soda effects them personally, so telling them to find out for themself is silly. They're asking specifically about the healthfulness of it, which is something that can be answered.
These studies are all funded by companies that sell aspartame. That's about the same as trusting a cigarette study funded by Marlboro.
You mean the studies that found aspertame can be harmful in large amounts were funded by companies that sell aspartame?
Well they handled that rather poorly didn't they? Probably should have labled it totally harmless if they were gonna be doing shady stuff.
I meant the studies that showed aspartame has no ill effects other than to those with allergies. It was a reply to the one right above mine.
I just think people should take things with a grain of salt. No, it's probably not causing tumors, but I have a hard time believing it is completely, without a doubt, 100% healthy. Science is always changing and we know things that we certainly didn't know 100, 50 or even 5 years ago. Research and science is never absolute.
What about potatoes? Do potatoes cause tumors? Shouldn't we study them some more?
Potatoes have chemicals.
They are members of the NIGHTSHADE family.
Not to mention they are covered in eyes. How creepy is that?0 -
So for the OP's question, the general answer /should/ have been, "Find out for yourself." ? Since neither group study nor personal experience would help them.
You don't undersand why, when someone asks 'is diet soda bad for me', people use studies to answer the question and tend to frown on people using personal anecdotes to answer the question?
Simply put it's because your experience isn't the experience of others but studies about things like aspartame and the lack of harm it causes in humans *do* apply to the population at large. Coming forth and saying "I feel better without diet soda" is about as worth while as someone with a peanut allergy saying 'I feel better without peanuts!' That's nice and all but what does it mean for people without that allergy?
No a damn thing.
OP didn't ask if you feel better without diet soda, they asked if diet soda is bad for them. Your personal experience has no bearing on that.
No the answer is "these studies show that diet soda has no ill effects on people barring allergies and will not impact your health." They already know how diet soda effects them personally, so telling them to find out for themself is silly. They're asking specifically about the healthfulness of it, which is something that can be answered.
These studies are all funded by companies that sell aspartame. That's about the same as trusting a cigarette study funded by Marlboro.
You mean the studies that found aspertame can be harmful in large amounts were funded by companies that sell aspartame?
Well they handled that rather poorly didn't they? Probably should have labled it totally harmless if they were gonna be doing shady stuff.
I meant the studies that showed aspartame has no ill effects other than to those with allergies. It was a reply to the one right above mine.
I just think people should take things with a grain of salt. No, it's probably not causing tumors, but I have a hard time believing it is completely, without a doubt, 100% healthy. Science is always changing and we know things that we certainly didn't know 100, 50 or even 5 years ago. Research and science is never absolute.
Same studies. There are no ill effects in humans, except in the case of allergies. Unless you're drinking what amounts to 2 or 3 24 can packs a day (large amounts).
It seems to me if they were up to no good they'd just say harmless but, in fact, the studies do admit that stupid large amounts cab cause harm. The very studies you scoff at.
They are just wily.
Crafty crafty0 -
Knowing the chemical composition of aspartame (aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol) really makes me think twice before partaking in an ice cold diet beverage.
If you think it is safe because the FDA says so, then you have WAYYYYY too much faith in the government. And if that is the case, I've got a bridge to sell you...
0 -
Knowing the chemical composition of aspartame (aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol) really makes me think twice before partaking in an ice cold diet beverage.If you think it is safe because the FDA says so, then you have WAYYYYY too much faith in the government. And if that is the case, I've got a bridge to sell you...
I guess I shouldnta had that V-8!0 -
Knowing the chemical composition of aspartame (aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol) really makes me think twice before partaking in an ice cold diet beverage.If you think it is safe because the FDA says so, then you have WAYYYYY too much faith in the government. And if that is the case, I've got a bridge to sell you...
I guess I shouldnta had that V-8!
Excuse me while I get away from you. I don't want to be around when you spontaneously combust. lololol0 -
N=1
8% BF
bloods in normal range
drink at least one diet drink per day
don't have phenylketonuria
don't feel nauseous or get headaches afterwards.
My take on it here. http://cdnutritionandfitness.com/aspartame-is-the-devil/0 -
I switch in between pepsi and diet pepsi and my sodium daily levels aren't high and I have lost 70 lbs so I think not my doctor even told me to drink diet instead of regular which I try to do most of the time0
-
OP: No. (Other than it's Pepsi and therefore gross. Switch to Diet Coke/Coke Zero and be happier.)0
-
There was a post circulating on my facebook feed last week, a supposed 'scientific news article' that claimed that aspartame was dangerous because it was made from the feces of e. coli.
A couple of people were actually commenting that it was disgusting and proclamations that they'd never buy diet soda again. I died a little inside and one person didn't quite believe me when I came in to tell them the post was bogus.0 -
There was a post circulating on my facebook feed last week, a supposed 'scientific news article' that claimed that aspartame was dangerous because it was made from the feces of e. coli.
A couple of people were actually commenting that it was disgusting and proclamations that they'd never buy diet soda again. I died a little inside and one person didn't quite believe me when I came in to tell them the post was bogus.
I hope they never go to the beach again, you know what sand is primarily made of?
0 -
While I know it is bad for you and science is there to back it up, I hate ignorance and people being worried just because some says to.0
-
Where is this science, please?While I know it is bad for you and science is there to back it up, I hate ignorance and people being worried just because some says to.0 -
Oh god this thread its too funny. All the wannabe immortals. Listen folks just about anything is bad for you. No really anything is. The air we breath contains minor pollutants even at its cleanest. The water we drink contains toxins that build up in our body. Even our medicine is ultimately bad for us. One of the worst culprits in fact. And the food we eat even at it's freshest and healthiest contains "bad chemicals" This is one of the main reasons human bodies don't last forever. Simply the acts of living damages us over time. That's why you can usually find bogus studies to tell you that just about any food you eat is unhealthy. That's because technically it is. In a very small insignificant way. That doesn't mean you shouldn't eat it. It's all about risk assessment. Risk avoidance is impossible while still being alive. That's what people don't get.
So stop being a bunch of pansies and look your own mortality in the face cos people quitting diet coke isn't going to make you live forever. I'm not saying that you want to just shove any old crap in your body but diet soda is .. by anyone's standards essentially benign.0 -
There was a post circulating on my facebook feed last week, a supposed 'scientific news article' that claimed that aspartame was dangerous because it was made from the feces of e. coli.
A couple of people were actually commenting that it was disgusting and proclamations that they'd never buy diet soda again. I died a little inside and one person didn't quite believe me when I came in to tell them the post was bogus.
I think I would post something like, "enjoying reading this while nomming on my greek yogurt"0 -
So for the OP's question, the general answer /should/ have been, "Find out for yourself." ? Since neither group study nor personal experience would help them.
You don't undersand why, when someone asks 'is diet soda bad for me', people use studies to answer the question and tend to frown on people using personal anecdotes to answer the question?
Simply put it's because your experience isn't the experience of others but studies about things like aspartame and the lack of harm it causes in humans *do* apply to the population at large. Coming forth and saying "I feel better without diet soda" is about as worth while as someone with a peanut allergy saying 'I feel better without peanuts!' That's nice and all but what does it mean for people without that allergy?
No a damn thing.
OP didn't ask if you feel better without diet soda, they asked if diet soda is bad for them. Your personal experience has no bearing on that.
No the answer is "these studies show that diet soda has no ill effects on people barring allergies and will not impact your health." They already know how diet soda effects them personally, so telling them to find out for themself is silly. They're asking specifically about the healthfulness of it, which is something that can be answered.
These studies are all funded by companies that sell aspartame. That's about the same as trusting a cigarette study funded by Marlboro.
You mean the studies that found aspertame can be harmful in large amounts were funded by companies that sell aspartame?
Well they handled that rather poorly didn't they? Probably should have labled it totally harmless if they were gonna be doing shady stuff.
I meant the studies that showed aspartame has no ill effects other than to those with allergies. It was a reply to the one right above mine.
I just think people should take things with a grain of salt. No, it's probably not causing tumors, but I have a hard time believing it is completely, without a doubt, 100% healthy. Science is always changing and we know things that we certainly didn't know 100, 50 or even 5 years ago. Research and science is never absolute.
What about potatoes? Do potatoes cause tumors? Shouldn't we study them some more?
Potatoes are grown, not man-made. That's completely different. And I definitely said that I DOUBT aspartame is causing tumors. I can tell you just really want to argue, but we don't know everything and never will. Research changes CONSTANTLY. I'm not saying no one should drink it. I'm just saying people should realize that not everything should be taken at face value. We used to use a lot of cancer causing plastics before they were researched more. Sure, most people didn't get cancer but some still did. It may not cause cancer, but it's still a man-made chemical and people are perfectly allowed to not want to put that into their bodies.
Hemlock is grown, not man-made. It can kill you. One of the biggest tumor causing agents is the Sun and we can't take credit for that. Small particles, such as naturally occurring silicates, can cause tumors.
I mean, I doubt potatoes cause tumors. But how can we know for sure?0 -
Cell division causes tumors.
Guess we all better kill ourselves right know to put a stop to that?0 -
Watch what coke does to a hard boiled eggs shell... Made of the same elements of our bones! . It's crazy! (first link)
http://dailyhealthpost.com/this-is-what-happens-in-your-body-when-you-drink-a-coke/
http://dailyhealthpost.com/20-practical-uses-for-coca-cola-proof-that-it-does-not-belong-in-the-human-body/?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral0
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