Why I am cutting back on sugar
Replies
-
We had a holiday jello salad too, although now that my last grandparent has died my mother has faced up to the fact that no one really eats it anymore. Just in the last couple years, though.0
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Demonizing, evils, self-hatred, oh my.Another one of these threads? Really? Can’t there just be an anti-sugar group where you can all lament the evils of sugar to your heart’s content?
I really thought it was becoming evident by this point that not everyone will get on board with this particular demonization, and for good reason in my opinion. Are you trying to convert others to your particular set of sugar beliefs? Scare people into eating less sugar? I just don’t understand what you think you will accomplish. Why can’t losing weight just be about eating at a caloric deficit while meeting self-selected nutritional goals, without guilt or self-hatred for eating a donut every now and again?
I'm not really seeing it, but ok.
Didn't you know, anyone who doesn't buy Oreos 4 bags at a time is a zealot who thinks sugar is a tool of Satan and proselytizes about it daily?0 -
Pretty sure the consensus in the other thread is to the contrary.0
-
Mhm. But on the topic of Oreos, apparently they’re awesome blended into shakes or crumbled on top of ice cream / greek yogurt. Just putting it out there.0
-
In fact, because I think the discussion here is being misrepresented, I said in one of my earliest posts that I limit sweets and no one jumped on me.
My understanding is that the "demonization" doesn't relate to personal choices, but the claim--made by OP--that sugar is responsible for the obesity crisis, as opposed to the overconsumption of calories more broadly.
See also Fed Up.0 -
*sigh* First part of my last post was a quote from lemurcat. Haven't figured out how to get it to copy partial quotes.
Make sure the first part of your quote has open bracket quote close bracket before anything else, and make sure the end of the quote has open bracket slash quote close bracket at the end.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »In fact, because I think the discussion here is being misrepresented, I said in one of my earliest posts that I limit sweets and no one jumped on me.
My understanding is that the "demonization" doesn't relate to personal choices, but the claim--made by OP--that sugar is responsible for the obesity crisis, as opposed to the overconsumption of calories more broadly.
See also Fed Up.
All I saw was the OP say this is how he, personally, was going to eat, what information he found when he did research, and asked other people if they agreed or disagreed, and why. I didn't see him anywhere suggest that anyone else should eat less sugar. He even said that he wasn't totally cutting it out for himself. Nowhere near the demonization and "sugar is the debil" rhetoric being spewed further up the quote tree.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »In fact, because I think the discussion here is being misrepresented, I said in one of my earliest posts that I limit sweets and no one jumped on me.
My understanding is that the "demonization" doesn't relate to personal choices, but the claim--made by OP--that sugar is responsible for the obesity crisis, as opposed to the overconsumption of calories more broadly.
See also Fed Up.
All I saw was the OP say this is how he, personally, was going to eat, what information he found when he did research, and asked other people if they agreed or disagreed, and why. I didn't see him anywhere suggest that anyone else should eat less sugar. He even said that he wasn't totally cutting it out for himself. Nowhere near the demonization and "sugar is the debil" rhetoric being spewed further up the quote tree.
I don't know what specific posts you are referring to, other than Emilia's, which I think is being taken out of context.
Most of this discussion has not been about OP's own eating choices--he asked what we all did, so some of us answered--but about his subsequent assertion that sugar was responsible for the increase in obesity and then the comments about marketing.0 -
In fact, I went back and it was there from the beginning:
OP:I'm not going into the science behind why sugar is bad. Just search on the web, "Is sugar bad" and read for yourself. The main problem is that sugar appears to be the main cause of obesity.
and another poster who immediately jumped in with the usual Fed Up stuff:The food companies have it down to a science on how much salt, sugar and fat is needed to be added to food and how to make us addicted to it.
That's not just "hmm, I'm thinking of reducing the number of cookies I eat, has anyone else done this."
Like I said, I said on the first page that I limit added sugar and think the WHO guideline (and reasoning) is reasonable, and somehow no one jumped on me. I think the comments about "demonizing" are a lot more targeted than some will acknowledge and relate to specific sorts of claims that are worth discussing (or perhaps debunking).0 -
Thanks for summing up, lemurcat. This is what I based my comments on. Anyone is of course welcome to disagree with my characterization, though! To each their own etc.0
-
If you look at SAD, it's clear that sugar is in fact a major contributor to the caloric surplus.
As is fat.
Someone coming from SAD will almost certainly have to significantly reduce sugar intake if they're going to lose weight and retain any meaningful body composition.
Same for fats.
0 -
If you look at SAD, it's clear that sugar is in fact a major contributor to the caloric surplus.
As is fat.
Someone coming from SAD will almost certainly have to significantly reduce sugar intake if they're going to lose weight and retain any meaningful body composition.
Same for fats.
Which was said upthread.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »If you look at SAD, it's clear that sugar is in fact a major contributor to the caloric surplus.
As is fat.
Someone coming from SAD will almost certainly have to significantly reduce sugar intake if they're going to lose weight and retain any meaningful body composition.
Same for fats.
Which was said upthread.
Every post on MFP is a repeat of something that's already been posted.
0 -
This is true.
I just wanted to be clear that no one (of course) was saying that people should not reduce their sugar consumption, but simply (contra OP and a few other posters) that it's inaccurate to single out sugar, as opposed to eating too much in general, as the reason for obesity as a social problem.0 -
*sigh* First part of my last post was a quote from lemurcat. Haven't figured out how to get it to copy partial quotes.
Make sure the first part of your quote has open bracket quote close bracket before anything else, and make sure the end of the quote has open bracket slash quote close bracket at the end.
Thank you! Simple thing, but appreciated
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »In fact, because I think the discussion here is being misrepresented, I said in one of my earliest posts that I limit sweets and no one jumped on me.
My understanding is that the "demonization" doesn't relate to personal choices, but the claim--made by OP--that sugar is responsible for the obesity crisis, as opposed to the overconsumption of calories more broadly.
See also Fed Up.
All I saw was the OP say this is how he, personally, was going to eat, what information he found when he did research, and asked other people if they agreed or disagreed, and why. I didn't see him anywhere suggest that anyone else should eat less sugar. He even said that he wasn't totally cutting it out for himself. Nowhere near the demonization and "sugar is the debil" rhetoric being spewed further up the quote tree.
well here is a direct quote from OP:
"I'm not going into the science behind why sugar is bad. Just search on the web, "Is sugar bad" and read for yourself. The main problem is that sugar appears to be the main cause of obesity."
when you make outrageous claims like sugar is the main cause of obesity and sugar is bad, you are going to get called on it, and most likely get all kinds of comments...
and OP never did post any of the studies showing sugar is bad...
If I said Aliens landed in NYC, would you want proof of it, or just take the word of an internet stranger...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »This is true.
I just wanted to be clear that no one (of course) was saying that people should not reduce their sugar consumption, but simply (contra OP and a few other posters) that it's inaccurate to single out sugar, as opposed to eating too much in general, as the reason for obesity as a social problem.
The only "in general" is that the excess calories in SAD are coming from carbs and fat, so it's not inaccurate at all.
Whatever else is going on, people on SAD are eating too many carbs, primarily in the form of sugar & highly processed grains. It's perfectly reasonable to single that out, and if the only action someone took was to get their consumption of that in order, they would experience significant improvements from that alone.
Could they do even more?
Of course.
As could we all.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »This is true.
I just wanted to be clear that no one (of course) was saying that people should not reduce their sugar consumption, but simply (contra OP and a few other posters) that it's inaccurate to single out sugar, as opposed to eating too much in general, as the reason for obesity as a social problem.
The only "in general" is that the excess calories in SAD are coming from carbs and fat, so it's not inaccurate at all.
Well, it ignores fat, and OP further indicated that prior worries about fat were wrong (as does almost every poster het up about sugar), so it is inaccurate even according to your own claim.
Vegans and some vegetarian types often claim Americans also get too much protein, of course, although I happen to think that's silly. But in that any number of macro ratios are consistent with health and included in perfectly nutritious traditional diets, the issue with the SAD is NOT macro ratio. It's overall too many calories (and, yes, too many calories from low nutrient foods, assuming we mean nutrients besides calories and carbs and fat).
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »In fact, because I think the discussion here is being misrepresented, I said in one of my earliest posts that I limit sweets and no one jumped on me.
My understanding is that the "demonization" doesn't relate to personal choices, but the claim--made by OP--that sugar is responsible for the obesity crisis, as opposed to the overconsumption of calories more broadly.
See also Fed Up.
All I saw was the OP say this is how he, personally, was going to eat, what information he found when he did research, and asked other people if they agreed or disagreed, and why. I didn't see him anywhere suggest that anyone else should eat less sugar. He even said that he wasn't totally cutting it out for himself. Nowhere near the demonization and "sugar is the debil" rhetoric being spewed further up the quote tree.
well here is a direct quote from OP:
"I'm not going into the science behind why sugar is bad. Just search on the web, "Is sugar bad" and read for yourself. The main problem is that sugar appears to be the main cause of obesity."
when you make outrageous claims like sugar is the main cause of obesity and sugar is bad, you are going to get called on it, and most likely get all kinds of comments...
and OP never did post any of the studies showing sugar is bad...
If I said Aliens landed in NYC, would you want proof of it, or just take the word of an internet stranger...
It's true
0 -
Or more simply, it is usually true that the average person with maintenance of 2000 but who is eating 2400 could easily reduce calories by cutting out half of their added sugar and not replacing it with other calories. Not always true, but usually. (It would have reduced my calories, even if not as significantly as some other tactics, since sugar wasn't my biggest issue.)
However, saying that--which seems to be what you are saying and which strikes me as non-controversial--is NOT the same thing as saying what the OP did initially or what some other posters jumped in to say: that Americans are fat because sugar and marketing made us fat. Americans are fat for a variety of reasons, but one big one is food is cheap (in time and money) and easily available, not much limited by social mores anymore, and humans aren't really used to such a situation or well-adapted to dealing with it.
Reinstituting rules for dealing with this in our own lives probably is a reasonable approach (and that can include strict limits on sugar or added sugar), but you don't need to justify this with over-the-top claims or by pretending that sugar is uniquely bad.
So now you can tell me why this is all wrong. Go ahead!0 -
Sugar is not the cause of obesity. Eating too many calories is.[/quote]
Obesity is caused by many factors - too many calories cause obesity. However, Insulin resistance may cause obesity in many individuals, and too much added/free sugar causes insulin resistance. Over time, that one coke spiking your blood glucose could make you insulin resistant.
You do need carbs and a limited amount of sugar for brain and body function, from what I understand. If you eat a range of vegetables and some fruit, you've got more than enough sugar.
There's a lot we don't know yet, but added sugar is emerging as a greater culprit. I have mostly eliminated added sugar from my diet. I eat a lot of fruit and plain yogurt. More controversial is how much complex sugar to eat. Jury is still out.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Or more simply, it is usually true that the average person with maintenance of 2000
but who is eating 2400.....
SAD is a lot more calories than 2400. The average for adults is over 3000 calories per day. Carbs are 50% -> 1500 calories -> nearly 400g. Average sugar consumption is nearly 200g/day, which is about half the carbs - meaning 25% of intake is added sugar.
Take out added sugars and that alone is enough to get rid of the caloric surplus.
So yes - under the current state of SAD is completely legit to say that eating added sugars is making America fat....marketing made us fat.
That I disagree with.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Or more simply, it is usually true that the average person with maintenance of 2000
but who is eating 2400.....
SAD is a lot more calories than 2400. The average for adults is over 3000 calories per day. Carbs are 50% -> 1500 calories -> nearly 400g. Average sugar consumption is nearly 200g/day, which is about half the carbs - meaning 25% of intake is added sugar.
Average doesn't matter, everyone is an individual. I'm sure my hypothetical applies to many people.Take out added sugars and that alone is enough to get rid of the caloric surplus.
If we are talking averages, take out the fat, take out the fast food/convenience food. Take out the weekend excesses or the snacks between meals. Take out the absurdly-sized meals at many restaurants. On and on. The point is focusing on just one thing--as if it wouldn't be replaced if you didn't do more given the wide availability of all kinds of easy to obtain and cheap hyper palatable food--isn't the issue.So yes - under the current state of SAD is completely legit to say that eating added sugars is making America fat.
No more so than that any of several other things (or a combination of things that differ from person to person). Yet for some reason people act as if sugar is the ONLY issue. That's what people are criticizing.
Since you seem to understand that that is false, I don't know why you always seem to be bending over backwards to defend these arguments....marketing made us fat.
That I disagree with.
[/quote]
One thing we can agree on.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »Nobody knows for sure what the "perfect" diet is. All we can do is look at what data is out there and come to our own conclusions. I'm betting on a low sugar diet. Call it personal preference if you want.
If we don't want to try any theory on what we should eat, we can always try to fall back on just maintaining a calorie deficit. The problem is maintaining a calories deficit is not mathematical problem but rather a human problem. If it were that easy nobody would be overweight. The real problem is how can we maintain a calorie deficit in a way that has a reasonable chance of success over time.
By the way, Acg67 (or anyone else), do you have a link that shows a reduction in sugar intake over the past decade? I'm really curious about that because I believe recently that weight gain (in the US) has actually leveled out. I'll need to find that data as well.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx
Are you familiar with post hoc ergo propter hoc?
And you do understand all carbs are sugars? Right?
I was not familiar with the term "post hoc ergo propter hoc" but I am familiar with the concept. You are right that we can't make assumptions about the relation between two events, however I think we can agree that in the absence of controlled studies it is fair to propose theories based on observations. There have been studies that seem to suggest a correlation between sugar and the ability to maintain a healthy weight.
On the other hand, are we to dismiss a theory outright because it can't be 100% proven. Even if I were to reduce my sugar intake and become extremely fit and healthy that would not prove anything but it would give credence to the theory.
Also, I tried to follow your line of reasoning by reading the data you provided but wasn't able to. The average intake globally of sugar and sweeteners has increased in the past decade from 8.7 to 16.8%. Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980. If anything, the data you provided supports the theory that sugar contributes to obesity.
Anyone making strong claims about what is good or bad to eat should have their validity questioned as I have been, deservedly. While it is fair to question what I claim as an opinion, I think if also fair to expect a well reasoned counterargument rather than just dismiss the premise as bogus because it can't be proven. For you part, it appears as if you have attempted to make a valid counterargument but I'm either not capable of seeing the connection to your data or the data is counter to what you are suggesting.
Thank you.0 -
GoPerfectHealth wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »Nobody knows for sure what the "perfect" diet is. All we can do is look at what data is out there and come to our own conclusions. I'm betting on a low sugar diet. Call it personal preference if you want.
If we don't want to try any theory on what we should eat, we can always try to fall back on just maintaining a calorie deficit. The problem is maintaining a calories deficit is not mathematical problem but rather a human problem. If it were that easy nobody would be overweight. The real problem is how can we maintain a calorie deficit in a way that has a reasonable chance of success over time.
By the way, Acg67 (or anyone else), do you have a link that shows a reduction in sugar intake over the past decade? I'm really curious about that because I believe recently that weight gain (in the US) has actually leveled out. I'll need to find that data as well.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx
Are you familiar with post hoc ergo propter hoc?
And you do understand all carbs are sugars? Right?
I was not familiar with the term "post hoc ergo propter hoc" but I am familiar with the concept. You are right that we can't make assumptions about the relation between two events, however I think we can agree that in the absence of controlled studies it is fair to propose theories based on observations. There have been studies that seem to suggest a correlation between sugar and the ability to maintain a healthy weight.
On the other hand, are we to dismiss a theory outright because it can't be 100% proven. Even if I were to reduce my sugar intake and become extremely fit and healthy that would not prove anything but it would give credence to the theory.
Also, I tried to follow your line of reasoning by reading the data you provided but wasn't able to. The average intake globally of sugar and sweeteners has increased in the past decade from 8.7 to 16.8%. Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980. If anything, the data you provided supports the theory that sugar contributes to obesity.
Anyone making strong claims about what is good or bad to eat should have their validity questioned as I have been, deservedly. While it is fair to question what I claim as an opinion, I think if also fair to expect a well reasoned counterargument rather than just dismiss the premise as bogus because it can't be proven. For you part, it appears as if you have attempted to make a valid counterargument but I'm either not capable of seeing the connection to your data or the data is counter to what you are suggesting.
Thank you.
That's not really valid though... Fat has seen a much larger increase than sugar so as per his logic one could argue obesity is caused by fat and use the 80s reasoning for that. The argument against sugar is weak at best, apart from approaching it in a vacuum and saying items rich in added sugar tend to be nutrient poor.0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
No, I completely agree, no one wants to take responsibility for the way they are. I'm typically very small but I put on weight by overeating...and it was mostly things like Chipotle and sushi which I love! I tend to over eat on salty foods and don't really crave surgary foods.0 -
FitnessTim wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »Am I the only one who thinks that sugar is being used as an excuse for why someone is overweight? It isn't that they overeat. It's the sugar's fault. Now they can be unhealthy and a financial burden to the health system and be accepted. Thank you Katie Couric.
As an American, was I responsible for my diet growing up? Was it a conscious reasoned choice for me to eat sugary cereals, candy, cola, etc. You can blame my parents but they came from a generation that didn't have to worry as much about what they ate - food was just generally better for you.
On the other hand, the companies that produced and marketed the food knew what they were doing and are still doing. They purposefully make food incredibly hard to resist. Good for them but who should have been responsible for informing the public the negative consequences of eating the food that was pushed on them by expert marketers.
Tell the overwhelming amount of obese children that it is their fault they are overweight. Or tell the parents who constantly struggle to get their kids to eat healthy foods that it is their fault they can't compete with billboards, commercials, Youtube videos and so on that promote junk food.
Ultimately it is my responsibility what I put in my body. I choose to become better informed about what proportions of foods I should eat. However, nobody should be forced to put in the same time and effort I have over the years to achieve reasonably good health.
I’d just like to point out that it is these companies’ job to make their products appealing. What’s more, most are publicly owned companies, so they in fact have a responsibility to shareholders to sell as much product for as much profit as possible. That’s not malevolent, it’s capitalism.
Word. And, ultimately, it's up to the parents or us as grown adults to learn about nutrition. Parent's shouldn't have to compete with billboards. They're parents, and until their children have money of their own, they are in charge of nutrition. Parents who let their children tantrum their way into too much food are only reinforcing terrible habits and get zero sympathy from me.
And I am going to disagree with your final point. I think if more people put in more time and effort into understanding health and nutrition, the world would be a much fitter place. You weren't 'forced' to do it; you chose to do it to improve your life and health. Frankly, I think basic nutrition should be mandatory in schools.
This x100.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Fiber - the fiber in fruit mitigates the effects of fructose in metabolics. There is not enough fiber in yogurt to do that.
Doesn't it depend on how you eat the yogurt? Lots of people eat it WITH fruit or on oatmeal, for example.
I don't add sugar to yogurt (my personal preference is to eat it plain with berries or some other fruit), but if I did and otherwise ate it as I almost always do--with a breakfast including lots of veggies and some fruit--why would the bit of added sugar be an issue?
Yes - context does matter - well I believe it does. I know you have posts that state the same - in a vacuum, sure there's an issue there - but if you eat it with something fibrous or add protein, it would help.
Like white rice - eat white rice unto itself - you'll spike your blood sugar and make that rice store as fat - but that's in a vacuum. Eat white rice with protein and a fibrous veggie (non-starchy), now you balanced off the GI load.
Great point!
In a calorie deficit?
And don't get started with your visceral fat argument. Because it's specious at best.
There's nothing specious about visceral fat. I had it - and I reduced it down to minimal amounts. I think that's trivializing the argument.
Calorie deficits are relative - if you eat a high protein diet, you raise your metabolism to account for the extra protein - it's a relative number. What's the number, you really don't know - it's a best guess - and it's a best estimation based upon the nutritional profile of the food you are eating.
If glycogen is not needed by the muscles, you store it as fat. That doesn't equate to being in a calorie deficit. You can be in a deficit, satisfied muscle glycogen requirements and still store it as fat.
Completely false.
Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy. It is concluded that DNL is not the pathway of first resort for added dietary CHO, in humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
I know I'm late to the party, but thank everything sacred you posted this. Because my head was going to explode.
He's not the only one who argues this nonsense about storing visceral fat in a deficit from carbohydrate consumption, either. It's mind-boggling.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »GoPerfectHealth wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »FitnessTim wrote: »Nobody knows for sure what the "perfect" diet is. All we can do is look at what data is out there and come to our own conclusions. I'm betting on a low sugar diet. Call it personal preference if you want.
If we don't want to try any theory on what we should eat, we can always try to fall back on just maintaining a calorie deficit. The problem is maintaining a calories deficit is not mathematical problem but rather a human problem. If it were that easy nobody would be overweight. The real problem is how can we maintain a calorie deficit in a way that has a reasonable chance of success over time.
By the way, Acg67 (or anyone else), do you have a link that shows a reduction in sugar intake over the past decade? I'm really curious about that because I believe recently that weight gain (in the US) has actually leveled out. I'll need to find that data as well.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx
Are you familiar with post hoc ergo propter hoc?
And you do understand all carbs are sugars? Right?
I was not familiar with the term "post hoc ergo propter hoc" but I am familiar with the concept. You are right that we can't make assumptions about the relation between two events, however I think we can agree that in the absence of controlled studies it is fair to propose theories based on observations. There have been studies that seem to suggest a correlation between sugar and the ability to maintain a healthy weight.
On the other hand, are we to dismiss a theory outright because it can't be 100% proven. Even if I were to reduce my sugar intake and become extremely fit and healthy that would not prove anything but it would give credence to the theory.
Also, I tried to follow your line of reasoning by reading the data you provided but wasn't able to. The average intake globally of sugar and sweeteners has increased in the past decade from 8.7 to 16.8%. Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980. If anything, the data you provided supports the theory that sugar contributes to obesity.
Anyone making strong claims about what is good or bad to eat should have their validity questioned as I have been, deservedly. While it is fair to question what I claim as an opinion, I think if also fair to expect a well reasoned counterargument rather than just dismiss the premise as bogus because it can't be proven. For you part, it appears as if you have attempted to make a valid counterargument but I'm either not capable of seeing the connection to your data or the data is counter to what you are suggesting.
Thank you.
That's not really valid though... Fat has seen a much larger increase than sugar so as per his logic one could argue obesity is caused by fat and use the 80s reasoning for that. The argument against sugar is weak at best, apart from approaching it in a vacuum and saying items rich in added sugar tend to be nutrient poor.
But they do tend to have lots of fat!
Indeed, given that the plurality of calories in many so called sweet treats is from fat, the focus on sugar is mystifying to me.
For the record, I'm not anti fat either, but it seems so obvious to me that we are just doing basically the same thing that didn't work in the '80s and '90s, but with sugar instead of fat. Perhaps scapegoating instead of looking at the overall diet is a bad approach?0 -
17% is added sugars and honey according to the FAO document.lemurcat12 wrote: »Or more simply, it is usually true that the average person with maintenance of 2000
but who is eating 2400.....
SAD is a lot more calories than 2400. The average for adults is over 3000 calories per day. Carbs are 50% -> 1500 calories -> nearly 400g. Average sugar consumption is nearly 200g/day, which is about half the carbs - meaning 25% of intake is added sugar.
Take out added sugars and that alone is enough to get rid of the caloric surplus.
So yes - under the current state of SAD is completely legit to say that eating added sugars is making America fat....marketing made us fat.
That I disagree with.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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